Maintenance judgments in favor of husband

Maintenance is a amount that is paid to wife, children and parents who are not able to maintain themselves. In general, it is basically “support or subsistence.” It is typically pays for the costs of essentials or requirements for the stuff of life.

However, it is not just a right to the claimant’s survival but also the capacity to work of the husband or wife, their behavior and other considerations will all be taken into account by the court when deciding how much maintenance should be paid.

Many of matrimonial cases which I handle in day to day life are based on vague allegations and malicious intention. Most of the maintenance cases filed by wife are only for the extortion of money from the husband.

Here, I have researched on few judgments that are favor of husband that help them in there maintenance case-

  1. In case of Abdulmunaf v. Salima: 1979, Wife is capable of earning in view of her being a nor mal healthy person and educated up to
  2.  SSLC, but she has not taken care to earn anything for herself-That disentitles her to full amount that she has claimed, but contention of husband that her application for maintenance is liable to be rejected, cannot be accepted-Refusal to earning by such wife may be taken into consideration while considering quantum of maintenance.
  1. In Kavita Prasad v. Ram Ashray Prasad 2009, Trial court granted maintenance of rupees four thousand per month then petition against observation of trial court that she was working somewhere and earning around rupees eight to ten thousand per month and maintenance granted by trial court was made subject to adjustment of maintenance being received by her under Section 125 of CrPC. Wife pleaded unemployed, despite being a qualified doctor. Court consider that as petitioner is receiving maintenance from her husband, she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of poor people.
  1. In case of Anil v. Sunita (2016), Non-applicant/wife resided in her matrimonial home for the first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days and it is alleged that in these 12 days she was harassed. It is practically impossible that she could have been so harassed that it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home. After 12 days she had voluntarily gone with her brother with a view to select a girl for marriage of her brother. Non-applicant-wife has not made any complaint to anybody or lodged a report to police station. It cannot be held that she was thrown with force from her matrimonial home or she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Non-applicant-wife is residing separately without any reason, hence, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and order granting maintenance to wife set aside. 
  1. In case of Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder (Smt.): 2003 it was held that if demand of dowry and cruelty by husband is not supported by evidence on record and reasons given for her ill-treatment are not existed and if wife leaves the matrimonial home without any justifiable ground then she is not entitled for any maintenance.
  1. In case of Shibani Roy v. Shambhu Nath Roy: 2007, it was held that torture and harassment to wife not established on the basis of evidence adduced Wife is not at all interested to live with her husband and she is staying in her mother’s house without any sufficient reason or just cause. Wife not entitled to claim any maintenance from her hus band as she herself left residence of the husband voluntarily.