Judgements relating to Maintenance to Wife and Husband
Posted on February 22, 2024
Several Supreme Court judgments have addressed the issue of enhancement of maintenance to wives in cases of divorce or separation. Here are some significant judgments:
1996 SCC (1) 490 – Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (1996): The Supreme Court held that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the court should consider the status of the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant, the income and property of the parties, and other relevant factors.
(2005) 3 SCC 636 – Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat (2005): The court held that the husband’s liability to pay maintenance is not confined to the period of subsistence of the marriage but extends beyond, provided the wife has no independent income.
(2008) 2 SCC 316 – Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008): The court held that the husband’s financial position and the wife’s needs are essential factors in determining the quantum of maintenance.
(2013) 9 SCC 419 – Rohit Chauhan vs. Surbhi Sharma (2015): The court held that the mere fact that the wife is capable of earning does not absolve the husband of his obligation to maintain her, particularly if she is unable to support herself due to circumstances beyond her control.
(2019) 9 SCC 409 – R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha (2014): The court held that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the court should take into account the standard of living of the parties, the wife’s educational qualifications, and the inflation rate.
These judgments highlight the court’s approach to determining the quantum of maintenance in cases where the wife seeks enhancement of maintenance. The court emphasizes the need to consider various factors such as the financial position of the parties, the wife’s needs, and the standard of living to ensure a fair and reasonable award of maintenance.
Here are some key Supreme Court judgments related to maintenance in favor of wives:
2005 2 SCC 33 – Ramesh Chandra Daga vs. Rameshwari Daga (2005): The court held that the purpose of granting maintenance to a wife is to ensure that she can live in a similar lifestyle as she would have if she were living with her husband.
(2010) 10 SCC 469 – D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010): The court held that a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would also entitle the woman to claim maintenance.
(2018) 12 SCC 199 – Shailja vs. Khobbana (2018): The court held that a wife is entitled to maintenance even if she is earning, as long as her income is not sufficient to support her standard of living.
(2015) 6 SCC 353 – Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena (2015): The court held that maintenance must be reasonable and fair, taking into account the husband’s income and the wife’s needs.
Chander Prakash Bodhraj vs. Shila Rani Chauhan (2008): The court held that the wife’s right to maintenance is not limited to her basic needs but extends to a standard of living that is reasonably consistent with the husband’s social status and lifestyle.
These judgments reflect the Supreme Court’s approach to maintenance in favor of wives, emphasizing the need for fair and reasonable maintenance to enable the wife to maintain a standard of living similar to that which she enjoyed during the marriage.
Supreme Court judgments related to maintenance in favor of husband
While the concept of maintenance is typically associated with providing support to wives, there have been instances where the Supreme Court has addressed cases where maintenance was awarded in favor of husbands. Here are a few such judgments:
(2002) 5 SCC 422 – Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata (2002): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a husband who is unable to maintain himself is entitled to claim maintenance from his wife if she has sufficient means.
2011 (13) SCC 112 – Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar (2011): The court observed that a husband’s financial incapacity does not absolve the wife from her obligation to provide maintenance if she is earning sufficiently.
1975 AIR 83 – Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi (1975): The court held that maintenance could be awarded to a husband if he is unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental disability or other reasons.
2014 (16) SCC 34 – K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita (2014): The court reiterated that maintenance is not limited to wives and can be awarded to husbands as well if they are unable to maintain themselves.
These judgments reflect the evolving nature of the law regarding maintenance and the recognition that both husbands and wives have a reciprocal duty to support each other based on their respective financial capacities.
High Court Judgements relating to Maintenance
There have been several significant High Court judgments relating to maintenance, especially under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Here are a few examples:
Shantha alias Ushadevi vs. K. Shanthakumar (Karnataka High Court, 2011): The court held that a wife is entitled to maintenance even if she has sufficient means to support herself, as long as her husband has the capacity to provide maintenance.
Nandkishor vs. Smt. Archana (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2016): The court held that maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC should be reasonable and sufficient to enable the wife to maintain a standard of living similar to that of her husband.
Rita Nijhawan vs. Balkrishan Nijhawan (Delhi High Court, 2012): The court held that maintenance should be awarded taking into account the income, property, and standard of living of both the husband and the wife.
Venkataramanamma vs. M. Subbarayudu (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2007): The court held that a wife is entitled to maintenance even if she is living separately from her husband for reasons other than those mentioned in Section 125(4) CrPC.
These judgments highlight the principles applied by High Courts while deciding maintenance cases, emphasizing the importance of fairness and adequacy in awarding maintenance to ensure the financial well-being of the spouse seeking maintenance.
Article Written by
Pathakota Venkata Mohana Rao B.Com, LL.M
Advocate at High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Designated Partner at VENSO LAW OFFICES LLP
Office No: +91 967 967 6450
E-mail ID: vensolawofficesllp@gmail.com
