Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati J. modified the impugned order and enhanced the compensation to Rs 75000/- (for wife) and Rs 25000/- (for son).

The facts of the case are such that the marriage was solemnized and a son was born out of the said wedlock. It was further submitted that, on account of the alleged disharmony the wife left her matrimonial home and came back to India along with the son. Thus, the wife filed an application against the husband under Section 125 CrPC before the Court, which was allowed vide the impugned order, while awarding the monthly maintenance to the wife and the son . The petitioner-husband (respondent herein) preferred the petition against the order seeking quashing and setting aside of the said order. The petitioner-wife (respondent herein) preferred instant revision petition challenging the order praying for enhancement of monthly maintenance.

It was submitted that the wife is earning Rs 85, 000/- per month and staying at Hyderabad, and thus, competent to earn her own livelihood, while the husband does not oppose the maintenance granted to the son vide the impugned order. Counsel also submitted that the wife deserted the husband of her own sweet and free will, and thus, she is not entitled to any kind of maintenance.

The Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, even if the wife is earning, then also she is entitled to the determination of maintenance, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.

It was submitted that the sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean a mere survival, and the lifestyle at Hyderabad, where the wife alongwith her son is presently residing, is very costly, and the son is also going in a good and reputed school at Hyderabad, the expenditure whereof is also too high. Thus, even if the wife is earning something, then also she is entitled to claim the necessary and adequate maintenance from her husband.

It was noted that the husband himself took divorce; therefore, the charge of desertion cannot become a ground so as to enable the husband to disqualify the wife from claiming the amount of monthly maintenance, in any manner whatsoever.

This Court finds that the husband is earning about Rs.12,00,000/- per month and the wife is earning Rs.85,000/- per month, and therefore, a very reasonable capacity of the husband to pay the maintenance should be 1/12th of his income, which shall take care of the husband’s claim for the high cost of living in the USA.

The Court thus held “the amount of monthly maintenance as awarded by the learned court below, vide the impugned order dated 30.08.2018, to the wife and the son, is enhanced to Rs.75000/- (for wife) and Rs. 25000/- (for son).”[Neha Mathur v. Arvind Kishore, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 943, decided on 26-05-2022]


For Petitioner(s): Mr Parvej Moyal (for wife)

For Respondent(s): Mr Shadan Farasat a/w Mr Harshit Bhurani (for husband)

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.