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.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that maintenance cannot be granted to wives automatically without examining financial circumstances. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha said courts must consider income, independence and responsibilities of both spouses before passing orders, setting aside a direction requiring a husband to pay Rs 20,000 monthly.
The Orissa High Court dismissed a husband’s plea challenging a maintenance order, observing that an educated and able-bodied man cannot avoid supporting his wife and minor children by citing financial hardship, as he is presumed capable of earning and fulfilling his legal responsibility.
Supreme Court of India ruled loan repayments creating assets cannot reduce husband’s maintenance duty. Court held such financial commitments are voluntary, reaffirming statutory obligation to support estranged wife over capital investments or non essential expenditures.
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.
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 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.”
