Latest Judgements on Maintenance and their Principles

LATEST JUDGMENTS ON MAINTENANCE AND THEIR PRINCIPLES

Author: Mr. Badal Khurana, JIMS School of Law

  • Sachin Gupta v.Rachana Gupta on 21 January 2019

Delhi High Court

Principle: High Court of Delhi noted that keeping in view of the fact that the wife can maintain a petition at any place where she is residing and the fact that the respondent has placed on record copies of her Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, which reflect the address of Delhi, the Trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that the Trial Court has territorial jurisdiction.

  • Manju Sharma v. Vipin on 1 July 2019

Delhi High Court

Principle: The court held that at the stage of assessment of interim maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has to only form a prima facie opinion.

  • R. KirubaKanmani v. L. Rajan on 17 June 2019

Madras High Court

Principle: A father is under an obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter even if she has attained majority.

  • Alphonsa Joseph v. Anand Joseph on 29 November 2018

Kerala High Court

Principle: The court remarked that maintenance can’t be denied to wife on the ground that she is earning.

  • Kamala v.M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October 2018

Supreme Court

Principle: A strict proof of marriage is not essential in the claim of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and that when the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

  • Rajesh v.Sunita and Ors. on 5 September 2018

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Principle: If the husband fails to pay maintenance then the defaulter i.e. the husband has to suffer imprisonment on each default to pay the maintenance. The first and foremost duty of the husband is to maintain the wife and the child. He may beg, borrow.

  • LalitaToppo v. The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018

Supreme Court

Principle: Maintenance can be claimed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Domestic Violence Act) even if the claimant is not a legally wedded wife. Further, the court held that under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the CrPC i.e. to a shared household also.

  • RamchandraLaxmanKamble v. ShobhaRamchandraKamble and Anr. on 21 December 2018

Bombay High Court

Principle: That an agreement wherein the wife waives her right to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is opposed to Public Policy and hence is unenforceable.

  • PrakashBabulalDangi v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. on 10 October 2017

Bombay High Court

Principle: The Bombay High Court made reference to Section 36 of Domestic Violence Act, 2015 which entails that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law and held that that the amount of maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be substituted to the order of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Ø V.M. Nivya v. N.K. Shivaprasadon 14 February 2017

Kerala High Court

Principle: Maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be paid to the husband only when he is able to prove any incapability or handicap. The Court remarked that a husband seeking maintenance from the wife can be treated only as an exceptional case as normally he has got the liability or obligation to maintain the wife. Moreover, the court observed that in the absence of such circumstances as enumerated above, endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness.

  • Sanju Devi v. The State of Bihar on 6 December 2017

Supreme Court

Principle: A judicially separated wife is as much entitled to maintenance as a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance. There is no reason why a judicially separated wife can’t get maintenance.

  • KalyanDeyChowdhury v. Rita DeyChowdhury Nee Nandy on 19 April 2017

Supreme Court

Principle: SC held that 25% of the husband’s salary would be just and proper as maintenance to wife.

  • Anil Jain v. Smt. Sunita on 29 November 2016

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Principle: Wife living separately from Husband without any reason cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

One thought on “Latest Judgements on Maintenance and their Principles”

  1. I am advocate i have 2 childrens. My husband as also advocate. But till my husband and me and 2 childrens seperated in my father house. So my husband liable to pay maintenance me and my 2 childrens?

Comments are closed.

error: Content is protected !!