You are currently viewing ๐—ช๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ฒ ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ปโ€™๐˜ ๐—•๐—ฒ ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—•๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—œ๐˜€ ๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—จ๐—ป๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€ ๐—œ๐˜โ€™๐˜€ ๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—๐—ผ๐—ฏ ๐—๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜ ๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ: ๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ท๐—ฎ๐—ฏ & ๐—›๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฎ ๐—›๐—–

๐—ช๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ฒ ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ปโ€™๐˜ ๐—•๐—ฒ ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—•๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—œ๐˜€ ๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—จ๐—ป๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€ ๐—œ๐˜โ€™๐˜€ ๐—ฃ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ค๐˜‚๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—๐—ผ๐—ฏ ๐—๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜ ๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ: ๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ท๐—ฎ๐—ฏ & ๐—›๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฎ ๐—›๐—–

In this case, the couple married in 2015 and had a child. Due to matrimonial differences, the wife moved out and in 2018 approached the family court for maintenance for herself and the minor son under Section 125 CrPC.

The family court in November 2023 directed the husband to pay โ‚น10,000 per month to the wife and โ‚น5,000 per month to the son. He was also directed to continue paying rent for the accommodation of wife and minor child.

The husband moved the High Court against the order; the wife also approached the Court separately for enhancement of compensation.

After going through the record, the Court rejected the husbandโ€™s contention that his wife, on account of her own actions and by living separately without any valid cause, had disentitled herself from claiming any maintenance.

In particular, it called out the husbandโ€™s argument regarding his wife allegedly maintaining a continuous relationship with her male friends.

โ€œThere is no evidence to substantiate the wild allegations levelled by the husband to assassinate the character of the wife. The reference made on behalf of the husband to the letterโ€ฆto contend that the wife through said document while admitting her fault has apologized for her conduct. Learned Family Court duly taking note of the said document has correctly held that the said documents have no significance in the facts of the case, as the said letter was written on 10.04.2016. However, the parties thereafter, have lived together for a substantial period and the petition for grant of maintenance was filed on 11.12.2018,โ€ it said.

It also turned down the argument that the family court had not not spelled out any formula for arriving at the amount of maintenance. The maintenance amount has been assessed while taking into account all the circumstances of the case, it said. 

On this aspect, the Court also dismissed the wifeโ€™s application for enhancement of maintenance.

โ€œThe maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the son is not the only amount, husband is paying. Over and above the said amount he is paying the rent for the accommodation of the wife and son. The said rent is stated to be Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2019, which was stated to have increased to Rs.14,300/- per month in the year 2023, and must have increase further with 10 % increase of rent per year qua the tenanted premises,โ€ it found.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the family court order and rejected petitions of both the husband and wife

Leave a Reply