The Allahabad High Court upheld a maintenance order directing a husband to pay his wife, ruling that a PM Awas Yojana house cannot replace maintenance rights. The Court said an able-bodied husband cannot avoid responsibility by claiming unemployment or low income under 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.
Gujarat High Court upheld maintenance order, holding able-bodied husband must support ailing wife. Court ruled financial setbacks cannot override duty under Section 125 CrPC, affirming Rs 50,000 monthly payment ordered by Family Court.
Kerala High Court examined transfer of maintenance case, clarifying jurisdiction between Grama Nyayalaya and Family Court. K. Babu held Family Court jurisdiction prevails where established, limiting magistrate powers under CrPC provisions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held acquittal under Section 498A IPC does not bar maintenance claims. Court clarified Section 125 CrPC operates independently, ensuring support if wife or child cannot sustain themselves.
Uttarakhand High Court ruled father cannot avoid child maintenance citing mother’s income or liabilities. Justice Ashish Naithani upheld order directing Rs 8000 monthly support under Section 125 CrPC.
The Gujarat High Court held that an LLB qualification cannot be used to deny a divorced woman her right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Court stressed that education alone cannot negate financial dependence entirely.
The Allahabad High Court held that a daughter-in-law is not legally required to maintain her parents-in-law under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS. The Court clarified that moral responsibility cannot be treated as a legal obligation unless the law specifically provides for it.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a man’s plea challenging maintenance awarded to his estranged wife and five-year-old son. The Court ruled that maintenance is a legal right rooted in social justice and constitutional values, not an act of charity.
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.
