Allahabad High Court: Wife Earning ₹73,000 Denied Maintenance, Child Granted ₹25,000
The Allahabad High Court denied maintenance to a wife earning ₹73,000 and owning a flat worth ₹80 lakh but upheld ₹25,000 monthly maintenance for the child.
Section 125 CrPC maintenance
Continue reading
Healthy Husband Must Support Wife: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court ruled that a healthy and able-bodied husband cannot escape his legal duty to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC. The Court rejected excuses of unemployment, stressing that a wife has the right to live with dignity.
Punjab & Haryana HC: “Wife” Must Be Interpreted Broadly to Provide Maintenance
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the term “wife” must be broadly interpreted to grant maintenance, even in cases of invalid or void marriages. The Court held that cohabitation after marriage rituals qualifies as a relationship “in the nature of marriage.”
Father Must Provide for Child Despite Mother’s Income: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a father cannot avoid his responsibility to provide for his child, even if the mother is working and earning. The court overturned a family court decision, ensuring the child’s right to maintenance.
Wife Can Receive Maintenance Even After Restitution Order: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if a restitution of conjugal rights decree favors the husband. Read the full case details.
Gujarat High Court: Difficult to Assess Husband’s Income in Unorganized Sector, Guesswork Required in Maintenance Cases
The Gujarat High Court ruled that Family Courts must use guesswork to assess a husband’s income in the unorganized sector when deciding maintenance pleas, as income is often difficult to determine.
“Supreme Court: Able-Bodied Husband Must Earn to Support Wife and Minor Child”
The Supreme Court has ruled that an able-bodied husband must earn by legitimate means to provide financial support to his wife and minor child. The court emphasized that this responsibility cannot be avoided, and maintenance is essential to prevent destitution.