The Allahabad High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal against interim maintenance, ruling that financial hardship cannot be used to dodge the legal duty to support a wife. The court also observed that if a person cannot maintain a family, they should reconsider marriage altogether, reinforcing maintenance rights during matrimonial disputes.
The Allahabad High Court upheld a maintenance order, ruling that financial hardship cannot be used to dodge a husband’s legal duty to support his wife and children. The court noted that when the wife lacks independent income and carries childcare responsibilities, the responsibility to provide remains non-negotiable.
Your news, in seconds
Get the Beige app — every story in 60 words, updated hourly. Free on iOS & Android.
After her husband died, a mother was pushed out of her family home by her sons. She lost an eviction effort under the Senior Citizens Act, but the Calcutta High Court still ensured she would receive Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance. The ruling stressed tribunals can only issue maintenance orders, not property eviction.
The Bombay High Court said interim maintenance should be based on the wife’s financial necessity, specifically whether she has sufficient independent income to sustain herself. In directing the husband to deposit Rs 3 lakh, Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke clarified that the wife’s family’s financial background is irrelevant to the maintenance question, focusing instead on her own earning capacity and need.
Swipe through stories, personalise your feed, and save articles for later — all on the app.
