Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court reaffirmed the rights of a wife to receive interim maintenance, even if she is not living in her matrimonial home, provided there are genuine reasons like cruelty or ongoing criminal proceedings. The case arose from a challenge filed by the husband against an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara.
The petitioner (husband) approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the Family Court’s order dated 25.05.2018. That order had directed him to pay Rs. 8,000 per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 20,000 towards litigation costs to the respondent (wife) from the date the matrimonial case was filed.
The petitioner had initially filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2011. When that case did not progress due to the respondent’s non-participation, he filed a divorce case in 2013. Subsequently, the respondent filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, accusing the petitioner of subjecting her to cruelty and demanding dowry.
In her application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent stated that she was financially dependent on her brothers and had no personal income. She claimed the petitioner owned rental properties, vehicles, a poultry business, and worked as an agent for Sahara India, earning an estimated Rs. 3 lakhs per month.
The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the respondent was working and earned Rs. 30,000 per month, and that her family was financially sound. However, he could not produce any documentary evidence to prove these claims. The only confirmed source of his income was his job as a Sahara India agent.
After examining the submissions and available evidence, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had rightly awarded interim maintenance. The court clarified that merely stating that the wife has deserted the husband or is employed does not suffice to deny maintenance—especially when she has filed cases alleging cruelty, which are still pending.
The court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kuchwaha, which held that even an earning wife may be entitled to maintenance depending on circumstances. As such, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the petition.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for women seeking legal redress while living separately due to cruelty or domestic violence. It affirms that a woman cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is not residing in the matrimonial home if she has valid reasons for doing so. The ruling also highlights that vague allegations about the wife’s employment or income must be backed by solid evidence to be considered by the court.
For the general public, this decision strengthens the legal position of women seeking interim financial support during matrimonial disputes. It ensures that economic vulnerability does not become a barrier to pursuing justice, particularly in cases involving allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the wife is entitled to interim maintenance despite not living with her husband?
- Yes. The court held that a woman alleging cruelty has the right to live separately and claim maintenance.
- Whether the husband’s claim of the wife’s independent income is valid?
- No. The court found no evidence supporting the claim that the wife was working or earning.
- Is Rs. 8,000 per month as interim maintenance reasonable?
- Yes. The court ruled the amount was neither excessive nor unjustified.
- Can the court’s interference under Article 227 be invoked in this case?
- No. The High Court refused to interfere with the Family Court’s well-reasoned order.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- None explicitly mentioned.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs. Anil Kuchwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715
Case Title
Anjani Kumar @ Pintu vs. Priya Devi @ Soni
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 387 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 89
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyay — For the Petitioner
- (Name not mentioned) — For the Respondent
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMzg3IzIwMTkjMSNO-ZTAW27–am1–H8KI=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
