Court affirms Rs. 6,000 monthly maintenance for minor daughter; denies interim maintenance to employed wife.
In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has upheld an interim maintenance order in favor of a minor child while denying the claim of interim maintenance for the wife in the case of Shri Vikas Bhadoriya v. Smt Jyoti Bhadoriya. The court, presided over by Justice Pushpendra Yadav, dismissed the criminal revisions filed by both the husband and the wife, affirming the Family Court's decision to award Rs. 6,000 per month to the minor daughter for her educational and daily needs.
The case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute where the wife, Smt Jyoti Bhadoriya, filed for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after alleging harassment and being compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Despite being employed as a government compounder with a monthly salary of Rs. 39,368, her plea for interim maintenance was rejected by the Family Court. The court considered her income sufficient to support herself, weighing it against the husband's financial obligations, including his pension and responsibilities towards his aged parents.
The Family Court's decision to grant interim maintenance to the minor child was challenged by the husband, a retired Army personnel, who claimed the amount was excessive given his financial constraints. However, the High Court maintained that the father's obligation to support his minor child remains irrespective of the mother's employment status, emphasizing the child's right to maintenance.
Justice Yadav highlighted that interim maintenance is a provisional measure intended to provide sustenance during ongoing legal proceedings. He noted that any interference with such orders is unwarranted unless they are shown to be arbitrary or in violation of legal principles. The court found the Family Court's assessment to be balanced and in line with the financial disclosures of both parties.
The judgment underscores the legal principle that a wife's employment does not automatically negate her right to maintenance, though her income is a relevant factor. It also reinforces the responsibility of both parents to contribute to the child's welfare, emphasizing that maintenance determinations are based on a prima facie assessment of financial capacities.
The court directed that the matter, pending since 2019, be concluded within six months, allowing the parties to address their grievances during the final hearing. The High Court's decision serves as a reminder of the interim maintenance's role in ensuring financial support during legal disputes, preserving the rights of minors and evaluating the financial dynamics within marital disputes.
Bottom line:-
Interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is granted as a temporary measure to ensure sustenance of the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. Employment of the wife does not automatically dis-entitle her from claiming maintenance, but her income is a relevant factor for consideration.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Shri Vikas Bhadoriya v. Smt Jyoti Bhadoriya, (Madhya Pradesh)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc id # 2946345
