Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi, Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1970
In this case, Hon’ble Supreme court has held that right of wife to maintenance is not absolute, while determining her claim and fixing amount of maintenance- Magistrate court is competent to take into consideration her own separate income or her means to support.
In Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy.
Sunita Kachwahaand Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2014 decided on 28-10-2014
In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her….”
Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4615 OF 2017
In this case, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court.
Rajneesh Vs. Neha, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020
In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court mandated both parties to file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to streamline maintenance claims, with false pleadings or misrepresentations possibly leading to proceedings under Section 340.
The Court emphasized that the objective of granting maintenance is to ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on the account of failure of marriage and not to punish the other spouse.
Factors to consider include the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife, her education and professional qualifications, independent income, ability to maintain her standard of living, employment history and litigation costs for non-working wives. Additionally, the husband’s financial capacity, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, and his liabilities should also be considered.
Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal 2000 (4) MPHT 457
Hon’ble Madya Pradesh High Court held that everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintaining himself or herself or at least make a sincere effort in that direction. If this criterion is not applied, there will be a growing tendency amongst the litigants to prolong such litigation. Spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts are not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose.
Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. vs The State & Anr.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi wherein while considering the provisions relating to maintenance under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and other prevalent laws like Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), it was held that when husband and wife are on equal footings then one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed
In Sakarben Shambhubhai Rabari & vs Shambhubhai Masharubhai Rabari
In this case, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court has to take into account not only the needs of person who claims maintenance but also the capacity, status, commitments and the obligations of person who has to pay it. If the husband has to maintain other persons like his parents, etc. reasonable allowance for their maintenance shall have to be made. It would be unjust to grant maintenance in an arbitrary manner. The party who has to pay maintenance is also not to be virtually rendered a destitute. A fair balancing of all the relevant factors is to be done by the Courts without making an emotional approach to the problem. The court shall have to keep in mind that what is to be provided is the maintenance and it cannot have saving element in it nor is it the purpose of the legislature to put the claimant in a luxurious position. The definition of maintenance given by the Act makes this position amply clear.
Vijay Kumar vs Harsh Lata Aggarwal decided on 10 September, 2008,
In this case the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that when Income of both husband and wife are almost similar and both almost equally qualified, there is no justification to grant interim maintenance to the wife.
Sudhir Vs. Shweta decided on 01.04.2024,
In this case, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while reducing the amount of interim maintenance to half, the court has held that while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the deductions of various sums from the salary of husband to be considered.
Kamal Singh Vs. Kanta Bangari dediced on 12.12.2023
In this case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that wife was not only educated and has capacity to earn but in fact she has independent source of income, declined her interim maintenance who was hiding the details of her sources of Income, expenditure and bank statements.
In Manish Kumar vs Pratibha decided on 18.09.2008
In this case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the purpose of provision of Maintenance u/s 24 is not to equalize the income of wife with that of husband, but are meant to see that where divorce or other proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the Court should pass an order even during the pendency of such a petition, for maintenance and litigation expenses. The court held that wife was earning well which was
sufficient to maintain herself as there was no offspring from the wedlock and
set-aside the order of maintenance.
ALKA SOLANKI Vs PRADEEP SOLANKI, CM(M) 276 of 2007 decided on 22.02.2007
In this case, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the orders of lower court denying interim maintenance to wife and held that law does not require to average out the income of the spouses and share the two in equal proportions. Law requires that the wife should be paid adequate interim maintenance. The test of adequacy is to give such money to wife which would enable her to maintain a standard of living to which she was accustomed to be in the matrimonial house.
Manokaran alias Ramamoorthy vs. M.Devaki AIR 2003 MADRAS 212
In this case, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that Grant of maintenance to the wife working and earning more that her husband is improper and the same cannot be said that the wife was not having sufficient independent income.
KN Vs. RG, MAT.APP(F.C.) 93/2018 & CM APPL 18317/2018 decided on 12.02.2019
In this case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, while upholding the decision of the Family Court to decline the grant of interim maintenance, held that the appellant wife was highly qualified and earning a good salary at a reputed MNC, sufficient to maintain herself and provide her with the required comforts of life. The court also gave due consideration to the husband’s expenses and held that in cases where both spouses are earning well, a mere difference in salary cannot be a reason for seeking maintenance.
Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 234 (2016) DLT 693 decided on 05.09.2016
In this case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, declined interim maintenance to a wife who was a qualified Chartered Accountant and was in profession since 2003.
Damanreet Kaur vs. Indermeet Juneja (2013) 1 JCC 306,
In this case, Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of the trial court where the wife declined maintenance under the domestic Violence Act on the ground that she was well qualified and had capacity to work and had been actually working in the past.
