The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely for being qualified, unless it is proven that she quit her job only to seek financial support. The court upheld a family court’s order granting ₹10,000 monthly to the wife and ₹5,000 for their son.
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.
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 Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife cannot sit idle and claim full maintenance from her estranged husband. She is only entitled to supportive maintenance while making efforts to sustain herself. The court upheld the reduced maintenance awarded by the appellate court.
A Delhi court denied maintenance to an MBA graduate, ruling that she is fully capable of earning for herself, and that the law does not encourage willful unemployment or dependency on a husband.
The Karnataka High Court revised a 2016 order, directing a husband to pay Rs. 5,000 for his estranged wife’s alternate accommodation instead of providing her a room in their shared house. The court cited the practicality and fairness of monetary compensation.
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 Karnataka High Court has ruled that a husband must maintain his wife and child if she quits her job to care for the child at his request. The Court emphasized that paying school fees does not relieve the husband of his responsibility for maintenance.
The Delhi High Court ruled that occasional acts of adultery by a wife do not disqualify her from receiving maintenance. The court clarified that continuous and repeated adultery is required to deny maintenance under Section 125(4) of CrPC.
