Recently the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court said that a man must pay regular maintenance to estranged wife, even if he is under financial distress. The court also clarified that he cannot get away from the responsibility of paying maintenance even if he wants to cohabit with the wife and kids.
“The earnings of the husband have come on record, and it came to fore that he has borrowed a sum of Rs15 lakh for his business. Even if he is in financial distress, he cannot avoid maintaining his wife as well as children. It is his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself,” the judge said.
“Merely saying that he was and is always ready and willing to cohabit is not sufficient ground to absolve himself of the liability to pay maintenance by projecting that without any sufficient reason the wife has left his company,” the judge added.
The wife along with two minor children approached the Bhandara family court by filing an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) claiming maintenance of Rs39,000 per month. Contending that she was unable to maintain herself and children after husband left her company, the woman demanded Rs7,000/month each for both children and Rs20,000/month for herself. Pointing out that the husband deals in automobile selling business, the woman claimed he earns Rs1 lakh per month.
After hearing both sides, the family court on August 1 last year awarded Rs5,000/ month for both children and Rs8,000/month to the wife towards maintenance. The husband was told to clear arrears within six months and continue to pay monthly maintenance. He was also asked to take the responsibility of taking care of the kids’ educational expenses.
However, the husband then challenged the family court’s verdict in HC through counsel Rajnish Vyas opposing Rs8,000 per month maintenance to the wife arguing that it was without any justification. The petitioner said he had made every attempt to bring her back, but there was no response from her and she had refused to live with him without any proper reason.
Therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to her.
Whereas, the HC noted that she faced several instances of mental and physical torture during their cohabitation. “The CrPC’s Section 125 (4) disentitles a claimant to seek maintenance if the wife is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. None of the above ingredients are established by the husband,” Justice Dangre said and therefore, dismissed the husband’s plea.
