The Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife leaving her marital home due to ill-treatment is entitled to maintenance, rejecting the husband’s claim that she moved out with mutual consent.
The Delhi court ruled that an unemployed husband is still responsible for paying maintenance to his wife, stating that losing a job doesn’t absolve him of his financial duties or the ability to find new employment.
The Supreme Court of India has declared that a woman cannot be treated as property and forced to live with her husband. The court rejected a man’s plea to compel his wife to return to him, upholding her rights.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that fathers cannot deny maintenance to their daughters based on glamorous social media pictures. The court emphasized that such images are not reliable proof of financial independence and ordered the father to continue paying support.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife is still entitled to maintenance despite occasional acts of adultery. This decision clarifies the rights of spouses in divorce proceedings.
After a failed Rs 13 lakh settlement, a daughter-in-law forcibly re-enters her in-laws’ home, sparking a family dispute filled with accusations of false cases and money demands.
After a failed Rs 13 lakh settlement, a daughter-in-law re-entered her matrimonial home, leading to accusations of false cases and a prolonged family dispute, as her in-laws claim.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a woman in a long-term live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance after separation, even if there was no legal marriage. The court upheld the trial court’s decision to award a monthly allowance, emphasizing the significance of long-term cohabitation and the presence of a child.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that the term “wife” should be interpreted broadly for maintenance purposes, even in cases where a marriage might be legally invalid. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar clarified that a relationship “in the nature of marriage” is sufficient for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the subsistence of a previous marriage does not bar such claims. The court has remanded the matter to determine the maintenance amount.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled against a wife who falsely claimed to be unemployed to secure maintenance from her husband, highlighting the importance of providing accurate financial information in court.
