Undue Sympathy With Husband For No Good Reason Is Not In The Interest Of Justice: MP HC Enhances Interim Maintenance To Wife & Children

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that in maintenance cases, Courts need not unduly sympathize with the husband for no good reason as it is neither in the interest of wife and children who are living a deserted life.

The Court was considering a revision petition, under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, seeking enhancement of interim maintenance amount.

The single-judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, " Trial Court must remember that wife and child/children are entitled for enjoyment of the same status which otherwise they would have enjoyed in their matrimonial/parental home. Undue sympathy with the husband for no good reason is neither in the interest of wife and children who are living a deserted life and is also not in the interest of justice."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Romesh Pratap Singh while none appeared for Respondent.

By the impugned order, the wife and son was granted interim maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month and ₹1,000/-. Challenging the amount, Counsel for Applicants submitted that they have filed salary-slip of Respondent of the month of February, 2024 according to which his gross salary is ₹68,228/- and his statutory deductions are ₹14,278/-. It was further submitted that therefore his take-home income is ₹53,950/-. So far as loan is concerned, it was submitted that Respondent already received the amount in advance and if he was making repayment of the same then it cannot be said that the said voluntary deduction is liable to be deducted from the take-home salary. It was further submitted that marriage was performed on 09.05.2019 and therefore, the contention of respondent that loan was taken for bearing marriage expenses is false because it is clear from salary-slip that loan was taken in February, 2022. 

The Court at the outset noted that since loan amount is nothing but receipt of money in advance, therefore, it is clear that not only it is a voluntar deduction but respondent has already received the amount in advance. 

"For calculating the take-home salary, only statutory deductions can be taken into consideration. The voluntary loan taken by husband has to be ignored. Therefore, it is clear that in the month of February, 2024, the take-home salary of respondent was Rs.53,950/-. Under these circumstances, interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- awarded to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- awarded to applicant No.2 is shockingly on lower side," the Court observed.

The Court was of the view that undue sympathy towards father was not needed and therefore enhanced the amount allotted for maintenance.

"Considering take-home salary of respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that interim maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to applicant No.2," the Court observed.

The Court was of the view the amount shall be payable from the date of application as directed by Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another.

Cause Title: Smt. Rekha Ahirwar and Others vs. Nirmal Chandra (2024:MPHC-GWL:21511)

Click here to read/ download Order: