IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS ON 125 CRPC IN FAVOUR OF HUSBAND

Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal Civil Revision No.1290/1 999 decided on 24.03.2000. In this case, it has been held by the Hon’ble high Court of Madhya Pradesh that educated and capable wife is not entitled for any maintenance.

Vishal Gupta Vs. Smt. Arti Gupta 21018 (2) JCC 964. Madhya Pradesh High Court. In this case, it has been held that an educated and capable of earning spouse cannot be permitted to sit remain idle or without any work, only to extort money in the form of maintenance from the another spouse, in this case Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal (Supra) was relied upon.  

Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta MAT.APP.(FC)NO.143/2014 judgment delivered on September 05, 2016.D.H.C. In this case, husband was an engineer and the wife was charted accountant. They had two children. Wife claimed Rs. 3 Lakhs per month maintenance on the pretext that husband’s income is Rs. 8 Lakhs per month. The Ld. Trail Court denied her of any maintenance on the grounds that she is well educated and capable to earn money but granted Rs. 12,900 /- per month to the children. On appeal, the high court also upheld the order of the ld. Trail Court and discussed about the provision of the section 24 in the light of Supreme Court’s decision.

Vijay Kumar Vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal CM(M) No.539/2009 decided on 10.09.2008 D.H.C. In this case, husband was a retired engineer and wife was advocate. Maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs. 10,000 /- P.M. On being challenged by the husband, it is held that maintenance should not be granted to the wife by ignoring her education and qualification.

Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur SLP (Crl.) No.7924 of 2008 (Supreme Court). In this case, Rs. 10,000 /- was granted to the wife as maintenance by ignoring the education of the wife. Matter came to Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reduced the amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that the wife is educated and capable to earn.

 Ritula Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Rajeshwar Singh W.P.NO.6686/2009 decided by the Bombay High Court on 26th February 2010. In this case, it has been held that increase of salary is no ground to increase the interim maintenance because for deciding the case on merit, evidences are required and at the interim stage maintenance amount cannot be increased trial is required.

 Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Chowdhury Nee Nandy Civil Appeal No.5369 of 2017 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 19.04.2017. In this case, it has been held that maximum 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent/wife.

Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha SCALE 2018 (9) SUPREME COURT. In this case, assuming the income of the husband Rs. 20 lakhs per month an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs per month as maintenance was passed. On appeal Ld. ASJ reduced the amount to Rs. 50,000 /- per month. The matter went to the Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for just and proper decision of a case, evidence and cross examination is required to ascertain the expenditure of the wife, which is not possible in at interim stage so, the wife was directed to file a case under 125 Cr.P.C where evidence would be conducted.

ASHAN KUMAR DHUNNA VERSUS MEENU & ANR. 2019(1) JCC 817 [DELHI]. In this case the wife was claiming that the husband has earned Rs. 82,57,887 /- in the year 2014-2015 and on the such assumption court came to the conclusion that husband’s average income was about 3 lakhs per month and granted only Rs. 40,000 /- per month as maintenance. In this case the Hon’ble High Court took into consideration several expenditure of the husband.

KN VERSUS RG 2019 [2] JCC 1679 DELHI HIGH COURT. In this case it has been held that when a spouse is qualified and has the capacity to earn, interim maintenance is not to be granted. It is further held that section 24 H.M.A is not a means to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband.