The Telangana High Court has quashed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC against a 69-year-old mother-in-law, holding that the provision creates no liability on a mother-in-law to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law or the children of her deceased son, while noting that other remedies remain open.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a husband’s care and attention towards his parents, or disputes with in-laws, cannot justify a wife leaving the matrimonial home and subsequently claiming maintenance under the law.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because her parents are supporting her. The Court held that parental assistance does not absolve a husband of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a father cannot avoid his legal responsibility to maintain his children merely by claiming unemployment. The Court directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his son and daughter, reaffirming parental obligations under law.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a father’s obligation toward his daughters includes funding higher education and not merely providing basic maintenance. Stressing that women empowerment must be implemented in practice, the Court directed payment of Rs 46.26 lakh towards the daughters’ medical and engineering education expenses.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Rajasthan man’s plea challenging an eviction order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while strongly criticising his dispute with his elderly father and urging him to care for and support his parent.
The Allahabad High Court held that a mother’s alleged remarriage cannot defeat the independent statutory right of minor children to claim maintenance from their biological father, reaffirming that a father’s obligation to maintain his children continues regardless of matrimonial disputes or changes in the mother’s marital status.
The Allahabad High Court held a husband cannot avoid paying maintenance to his wife and children merely due to imprisonment for non-payment. The court clarified such punishment does not clear arrears or end the continuing legal obligation.
Challenging the “idle wife” notion, the Delhi High Court held that a homemaker’s contributions enable the earning spouse’s success and cannot be ignored in maintenance decisions. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said non-employment does not imply idleness or deliberate financial dependence.
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.
