In a rare occasion, a trial court refused to grant interim maintenance to a 36-year-old woman living in Tardeo , after it found that she earned Rs 4 lakh more than her estranged husband annually. A sessions court has now upheld the order and refused to grant the woman relief.

The courts observed as the woman earned more than her husband, she was not entitled to get any money from him.
“Indeed, an earning wife is also entitled to maintenance, but for that other circumstances need to be considered… Here also, the husband has more income than wife or whether the wife is entitled for maintenance would be considered on merit. But at this stage, considering prima facie income of the parties, the order of the magistrate is legal and proper,” Judge C V Patil said.
The woman had filed a domestic violence case against her husband and in-laws in 2021 and alleged that after their child’s birth, she was forced to move out of their Dadar home.

The judge, though, directed the man to pay Rs 10,000 a month towards maintenance of their young child, the husband had denied paternity citing his sexual dysfunction.

The woman had told the court when she conceived, she was cohabitating with her husband. She also submitted her husband was being treated for sexual dysfunction but he did not inform her about it. When the husband and relatives came to know about her pregnancy, they started suspecting her character.
The judge referred to Section 112 of Evidence Act which says.

“Here, husband and wife were residing together. The wife has conceived when she was residing with the husband and in his house. There is no case that the husband did not have access with the wife. In such circumstances, considering presumption of Section 112 of the Evidence Act it can be said at this stage that the child is legitimate child,” the judge said.

After the magistrate court’s November 2022 order, both the estranged husband and wife filed separate appeals before the sessions court. She sought maintenance for herself and enhancement of maintenance for the child. The husband denied paternity of the child.