The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a husband cannot withhold support from a wife who leads a contemporary life.
The application challenging the Second Additional Sessions Judge's Criminal Revision order, which resulted from a JMFC, Amarpatan order awarding respondent No. 1 maintenance of Rs. 5,000 and respondent No. 2 maintenance of Rs. 3,000, was presented to the bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia. Paritosh Trivedi, the applicant's attorney, stated that the primary cause of the applicant and respondent No. 1's separation in this instance is that the applicant comes from a very traditional household, whereas respondent No. 1 is a very contemporary lady.
Additionally, it was argued that such the maintenance amount granted to respondent No. 2, the applicant is in agreement and will proceed with payment; nevertheless, regarding the maintenance amount granted to respondent No. 1, given respondent No. 1's lifestyle, the aforementioned maintenance order may be revoked.
The High Court ruled that it was not appropriate for this court to find that a woman is wrong if she is living a contemporary life and her husband views her actions as immoral. It is impossible to blame someone for living a contemporary life without committing any crimes. Maintenance cannot be withheld from the woman unless and until it is shown that she is living apart from her spouse without a valid cause.
The bench went on to say
The bench also stated that no further evidence was presented to support the applicant's contention that the wife is living apart from him for no justifiable cause, except than the submission that the wife leads a contemporary lifestyle. If the applicant and his wife disagree on this matter, the only thing this court can say is that respondent No. 1 is free to live her life as she pleases, whether it be traditional or contemporary, provided she does not engage in criminal behavior.
At a monthly cost of Rs. 5,000, maintenance has been awarded by the Trial Court. After taking into account the price index, the cost of living, and the cost of everyday essentials, the bench came to the conclusion that it is not possible to, it can be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is on higher side.
The High Court expressed its opinion that the Trial Court did not make any jurisdictional errors in granting respondent No. 1 monthly maintenance at a rate of Rs. 5,000/-per month.
In view of the above, the bench dismissed the application.
Bench: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 54170 of 2023
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
