The Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife cannot sit idle and claim full maintenance from her estranged husband. She is entitled only to supportive maintenance and must make efforts to earn a livelihood.
The Madras High Court ruled that a wife and child are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the marriage is not legally valid due to the existence of a first marriage. The court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month in maintenance.
A Mumbai court refused to grant maintenance to a woman earning more than her husband. However, it ordered the husband to pay child support despite his denial of paternity.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that a husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to pay maintenance to his wife by entering into a private agreement. The court emphasized that a wife’s right to maintenance is a statutory entitlement under Section 125 CrPC.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a father cannot refuse to pay maintenance for his child, even if the child lives with maternal grandparents. The court emphasized the father’s ongoing responsibility despite his financial situation.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that Section 125 CrPC is not meant to create a dependent class of people awaiting financial support from their spouses. In a recent case, the court reduced the maintenance amount after considering the wife’s qualifications and earning potential.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that if a husband is healthy and capable of earning, he is legally bound to support his wife. The court dismissed claims of lack of employment as invalid excuses to evade maintenance payments.
