The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance simply because she is qualified, unless it is proven she quit her job to seek support. Both the husband’s challenge and the wife’s request for more maintenance were rejected.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that Section 125 CrPC is not intended to create dependent individuals waiting for maintenance from their spouse. The court reduced the maintenance awarded to the wife, considering her ability to earn an income.
The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife and children from a second marriage are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the first marriage is still legally valid. This decision came as the court dismissed a petition challenging a Family Court’s order for maintenance.
The Kerala High Court ruled that an unmarried daughter who has reached adulthood cannot claim maintenance from her father solely on the grounds of financial inability. The court emphasized that evidence of physical or mental incapacity is required to claim maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance unless continuous adultery is proven, dismissing a husband’s attempt to discredit his wife’s maintenance claim.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that under Section 125 CrPC, the term ‘wife’ includes women married through rites, not just legally wedded wives. The court upheld maintenance orders and dismissed the criminal revision.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that when a husband has custody of minor children, his convenience should be prioritized in matrimonial cases. The Court rejected the wife’s request to transfer the case, ensuring the husband’s responsibility for travel expenses.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that a husband cannot avoid his duty to pay maintenance by entering into an agreement with his wife. This decision reinforces the wife’s statutory right under Section 125 CrPC.
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.
