Calcutta High Court upheld interim maintenance granted to a Hindu woman who married a Muslim man under Islamic rites. It noted Supreme Court of India ruling that a Muslim husband must pay maintenance until a competent court declares marriage void.
Allahabad High Court held that a husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to maintain his wife on grounds of financial difficulty. Court observed that a person who cannot maintain spouse should not marry in first place at all.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court partly allowed a husband’s writ petition, reducing interim maintenance from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000 per month. The Court clarified that only actual income, not non-income-generating assets, should be considered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act while deciding maintenance pendente lite.
Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami faces fresh legal proceedings as his wife Hasin Jahan seeks transfer of domestic violence and maintenance cases from West Bengal to Delhi. She claims financial hardship and child welfare concerns as key reasons for the move.
The Delhi High Court directed a husband to provide maintenance to his wife and daughter. It emphasized that the custody of one child does not exempt him from supporting his wife and the child living with her.
The Delhi High Court held that a wife cannot be presumed to be earning for interim maintenance without proof. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the husband’s claim of nursery teacher employment, noting absence of documentary evidence supporting alleged income.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that interim maintenance cannot be determined with mathematical precision, especially in cases involving foreign income. The court held that mere earnings in foreign currency do not automatically justify higher maintenance.
The Delhi High Court stated that a working parent’s earning capacity, whether husband or wife with custody of minor children, does not reduce their caregiving responsibilities. The Court stated that fathers’ obligation doesn’t diminish, and mothers shouldn’t be overburdened.
The Delhi High Court held a husband cannot rely on wife’s inherited property or family gifts to oppose maintenance, stressing her earning capacity. It said, “stridhan or inherited property cannot be treated as income to defeat her claim.”
Today, On 7th November, Supreme Court sought a reply from cricketer Mohammed Shami on his wife Hasin Jahan’s plea seeking Rs.10 lakh monthly maintenance, after she moved the apex court claiming financial deprivation despite his income from cricket and endorsements.
