Latest Supreme Court judgments on

granting of maintenance to wife

Introduction
The notion of maintenance may be traced back to a civilised society’s social
justice system. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr. (2013), the
Supreme Court of India explained the justification for granting maintenance by
stating that “maintenance is provided with the goal of strengthening the poor
and attaining social justice, or individual equality and dignity. It
encapsulates societal ideals.” The right to demand maintenance is statutory in
India, and it cannot be taken away by an agreement to the contrary.
Maintenance might be granted throughout the course of the proceedings
(maintenance pendente lite) or after the completion of the proceedings
(maintenance final), that is permanent maintenance. The right to claim
maintenance is available to wives, children, and parents. Even husbands (who
are unable to support themselves) are entitled to maintenance under specific
personal laws. This article provides a list of ten Supreme Court judgments
concerning the maintenance of a wife.

In India, married women have the right to seek maintenance (both interim and
permanent) under general laws, in addition to their rights under their separate
personal laws.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) requires a husband
to support his wife (who is otherwise unable to maintain herself). The Supreme
Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors (2014) has held that Section
125 of CrPC was conceived to alleviate the agony, anguish, and financial
suffering of a woman who has left her matrimonial home for the reasons set
forth in the provision so that the Court can make appropriate arrangements for

1/17
her and her children if they are with her. The term “sustenance” does not
always imply that one is living an animal’s existence. She has the legal right to
conduct her life in the same manner as she would have in her husband’s home.

The Delhi High Court had ruled in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar
Sharma (2020) that maintenance is not only a constitutional right but also an
element of universal human rights. The purpose of paying maintenance is
twofold,

1. First, to prevent vagrancy as a result of strained husband-wife

relationships, and
2. To guarantee that the poor litigating spouse is not crippled as a result of a
lack of funds to defend or prosecute the case.

In addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC or any

other legislation in effect, an aggrieved wife is entitled to maintenance under
Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(PWDA). The amount of maintenance must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and
commensurate with the injured person’s quality of living.

Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak

Tyagi (2021)
A father’s duty and responsibility to keep his child until they reach the age of
majority cannot be excused. It is also undeniable that the child has a right to be
cared for in accordance with his father’s position. This was observed by
division bench judges comprising of Hon’ble Justices Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai
Shah and A.S. Bopanna of the Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Neha
Tyagi vs. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2021).

Facts of the case

The facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent were married and
had a son out of wedlock. A disagreement erupted between the husband and
wife, and the appellant-wife filed a number of complaints against the

2/17
respondent-husband along with his employer, the Army Authorities. The
complaints included the respondent’s extramarital affairs as well. The
respondent-husband filed a divorce petition against the appellant-wife in the
learned Family Court of Jaipur, alleging cruelty and desertion by the appellant.
On May 19, 2008, the learned Family Court issued a decision dissolving the
marriage between the appellant and the respondent based on cruelty and
desertion by the appellant-wife. The appellant, in this case, filed an appeal with
the High Court, feeling offended and unhappy with the ruling. The High Court
dismissed the said appeal and upheld the decision and decree of the learned
Family Court in the contested judgement and order. As a result, at the request
of the appellant-wife, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

Observation by the Apex Court

1. After reviewing the facts and arguments offered, the Supreme Court
concluded that the respondent’s duty and responsibility to maintain his
son until he reaches the age of majority cannot be relieved. A child should
not be made to suffer because of a disagreement between husband and
wife. The father’s duty and responsibility for the child’s maintenance
remain until the child reaches the age of majority. It is likewise unarguable
that the son has a right to be maintained in the same manner as his
mother.
2. It has been stated that the mother is unemployed. As a result, regardless of
the decree of dissolution of the marriage between the appellant-wife and
the respondent, a reasonable/sufficient sum is necessary for her son’s
maintenance, including his schooling, which must be provided by the
respondent.
3. In light of the foregoing reasons indicated above, the current appeal was
dismissed by affirming the divorce/dissolution of marriage decree entered
between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband. However, the
respondent-husband is ordered to pay the appellant Rs.50,000/- per
month beginning in December 2019 for the support of his kid, based on
the respondent’s current condition.

3/17
Rajnesh v. Neha (2020)
In Rajnesh v Neha (2020), a Supreme Court division Bench comprising of
Justices Indu Malhotra and Subhash Reddy put down extensive norms to
control the payment of maintenance in matrimonial cases on November 4th,
2020.

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant, Rajnesh, was ordered by the Family Court to pay
maintenance to the respondent, Neha, and their minor child. He unsuccessfully
challenged this order in the Bombay High Court and finally filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court. Rajnesh was ordered by the Supreme Court to pay
all his debts and make interim maintenance payments.

Guidelines by the Supreme Court of India

While adjudicating this case, the Court found the need to frame guidelines that
would cover overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for
maintenance payment, interim maintenance payment, determining the
quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded,
and the enforcement of maintenance orders.

1. The Court while addressing the conflict arising out of overlapping

jurisdiction noted that, while there is no restriction on invoking multiple
laws to obtain maintenance, it would be inequitable to direct the husband
to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the
relief granted in a previous proceeding. As a result, the spouse seeking
support must inform the Court if they have been awarded maintenance in
a prior or separate proceeding. Furthermore, while determining the
amount of maintenance, the Court must take into consideration any
previous maintenance order in order to reduce or offset the amount.
2. The Court has simplified the interim maintenance process in light of the
judicial delay in adjudicating interim maintenance actions and the usual
practice of parties concealing their financial position. The Court created

4/17
 affidavit templates for parties to use when declaring their financial
situation. It also established deadlines to avoid delays and observed that
the respondent must make their disclosure within four weeks, and the
concerned court must rule on interim maintenance within four to six
months.
3. The Court acknowledged that there was no straitjacket formula to
calculate the quantum of maintenance. The Court noted that the same
should balance the applicant spouse’s interests with the responding
spouse’s financial competence. The Court outlined considerations to
examine when determining the amount of maintenance to be paid. The
following items were included on the list, namely,

1. The parties’ status,

2. The applicant’s needs,
3. The respondent’s income and property,
4. The claimant’s liabilities and financial responsibilities,
5. The parties’ age and employment status,
6. The parties’ residential arrangements,
7. The parties’ minor children’s maintenance, and
8. Illness or disability..

4. The Supreme Court noted that in the past, courts have utilised a variety of
criteria to determine when maintenance should be paid to the applicant,
including the date the application was filed, the date of the court order,
and the date the respondent received the notification. After considering
each of these cut-off dates, the Apex Court in the present case determined
that awarding maintenance from the date of the application’s submission
would be in the applicant’s best interests.
5. The Court devised three techniques to address the challenges of
implementing maintenance orders. First, the maintenance orders might be
implemented in the same way as a civil court decision would, with the
court having civil detention, property attachment, and other powers.
Second, the court may dismiss the respondent’s defence. Finally, the court

5/17
 has the authority to begin contempt proceedings. Any of these tools might
be used by the court to enforce maintenance orders.

Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and

Anr (2018)
In the present case of Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2018)
that appeared before the Supreme Court of India, the appellant, not a legally
wedded wife of the respondent, had approached the Court to seek maintenance
under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 assuming that she would not be entitled to maintenance under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Facts of the case

The appellant, in this case, was in a live-in-relationship out of which she also
had a child. When the pair broke up, the appellant sought maintenance from
her partner, which the Family Court in Gumla granted, paying her Rs 2000 per
month and Rs 1000 to her child. Her partner took the matter to the Jharkhand
High Court, which ruled that the Family Court’s ruling was incorrect. The
appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the
validity of the High Court’s decision. The three questions being associated with
the present case that the Apex Court was made familiar with were:

1. Whether a man and woman living together as husband and wife for a
significant period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage
between them, and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman
to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
2. Is transparent evidence of marriage required for a claim of maintenance
under Section 125 of the CrPC in light of the provisions of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005?
3. Is it true that a marriage performed according to traditional rites and
rituals without properly complying with the requirements of Section 7(1)

6/17
 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle
the woman to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

Decision of the Apex Court

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of former Chief

Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices UU Lalit and K.M. Joseph declined the
aforementioned questions saying that the questions do not require any answer
and further directed the appellant to approach an appropriate forum under the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Another v.

Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & another
(2015)
In the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Another v. Hirenbhai
Rameshchandra Vyas & another (2015), the Supreme Court was considering
an appeal made before it by a wife and her minor daughter. Her son was living
with his father, the appellate’s husband, who was maintaining him. Under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Family Court ordered
the payment of interim maintenance to the wife and minor daughter of Rs.
6,000/- per month. Interim support of 3,000/- per month was also granted
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, payable to both parties. By
Order dated 31.01.2009, the Family Court ultimately resolved the maintenance
procedures. The Family Court ordered maintenance to the daughter in the
amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the verdict. The Family
Court also held that the appellant-wife would be entitled to no more than the
interim maintenance she was getting under the Act of 1955.

The son was living with his father, who was paying his maintenance, and hence
was not entitled to it. The major reason for the Appellant’s denial of
maintenance was that she was found to have worked before her marriage, and
the Family Court believed she could earn a living even after the separation,
therefore she was refused support. The High Court did not agree with this

7/17
viewpoint, noting that the Appellant had ceased working following her
marriage and had two children. She had quit working since she was solely
focused on her family. The High Court, therefore, overturned the Family
Court’s decision and awarded Rs. 5,000/- in maintenance.

But, the High Court had directed that the maintenance should be paid only
from the date of its order and had not given any reason why it had not directed
maintenance from the date of the application for maintenance. On being
aggrieved by the same, the appellate approached the Supreme Court of India.

Supreme Court’s observations

1. Every final order issued under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 shall include points for determination, the decisions thereon,
and the reasons for such decision. To put it another way, Sections 125 and
354 (6) of the Code of 1973 must be read together. Section 125 of the CrPC
implies that the Court should consider making the maintenance order
effective from any of the two dates (the date of the order or the date of the
application). It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply
states that maintenance should be paid from either the date of the order or
the date of the application in matters of maintenance.
2. The Apex Court had noted that the High Court had offered no reason why
maintenance should not be granted from the date of the application. In
light of the fact that the appellant worked before marriage but not
throughout her marriage, the Apex Court concluded that the
circumstances eminently warranted the grant of maintenance with effect
from the date of the application as there was no record of her earnings
throughout the time the couple was married. Hence, the Order of the High
Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in the present case as it held
that the amount of maintenance should be paid to the appellant from the
date of the application for maintenance itself.

Manoj Yadav v. Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav (2011)

8/17
The present case ofManoj Yadav v. Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav (2011) concerned
an appeal that was filed against the impugned judgement of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court dated 23.01.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No.
12/2008. That judgement was rendered in a criminal revision brought against
the learned Additional Family Court, Gwalior’s order dated 04.10.2007 giving
respondent maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month under Section 125 CrPC.
The respondent had requested an increase in the maintenance by means of her
criminal revision. The High Court, in the impugned decision, awarded the wife-
respondent in this matter monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- with effect from
January 1, 2009. That Order had been questioned before the Apex Court in the
present case.

Observation of the Supreme Court of India

1. Because of the change to Section 125 CrPC by Madhya Pradesh Act (10 of
1998), learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the maximum
sum that may be given as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in the state
of Madhya Pradesh might be Rs. 3,000/-. It appears that Section 125 CrPC
has been further amended in Madhya Pradesh by a subsequent
amendment by Madhya Pradesh Act (15 of 2004), which does not contain
any upper limit on the amount of maintenance that can be granted under
the aforementioned provision and instead leaves it to the magistrate’s
discretion. As a result, the appellant’s counsel’s contention stood without
merit.
2. After the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001, which
removed the phrase “not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole,” any
state amendments to Section 125 CrPC that established a ceiling on the
amount of maintenance to be provided to the wife, became invalid. The
appeal in the present case was therefore dismissed.

Bhabani Prasad Jena Etc. v.

Convenr.Sec.Orissa S.Comn (2010)

9/17
In the present case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Etc vs Convenr.Sec.Orissa S.Comn
(2010), two questions that were to be considered by the Supreme Court of
India were as follows:

1. The authority of the State Commission for Women, which was established
under Section 3 of the Orissa (State) Commission for Women Act, 1993.
2. Whether the High Court of Orissa was justified in issuing suo motu
direction for the Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test (DNA) of the child and the
appellant who, according to the mother of the child, was its father?

Facts of the case

Bhabani Prasad Jena, the appellant, and Suvashree Nayak, the respondent,
married on May 15, 2007. On June 30, 2007, the Marriage Officer, Khurda,
Bhubaneswar, issued a certificate of marriage under Section 13 of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954. On August 7, 2007, the appellant filed a petition in the
Court of District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar, under Section 25(iii) of the
1954 Act, seeking a declaration that the marriage between him and the
respondent, registered on June 30, 2007, was null and void and that the
marriage had not been consummated. The respondent had issued a written
statement with respect to this matrimonial process, traversing the claims
stated in the petition discussed above. She also demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- in
alimony for the rest of her life.

The respondent filed a complaint with the Orissa (State) Commission for
Women on December 30, 2008, alleging that she was married to the appellant
and that they had separated due to the torture meted out to her by the
appellant and his family members, as well as other issues which included that
she had no source of income and was pregnant. The State Commission issued
notifications to both parties in response to the complaint. The parties appeared
before the State Commission on April 20, 2009. The appellant filed a written
response to the complaint, claiming that the couples’ marriage was null and
void owing to fraud and coercion and that he had already applied to the District
Court of Khurda to have the marriage declared null and void.

10/17
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court challenging the
aforementioned ruling. The appellant claimed that he did not father the child
in the respondent’s womb and that there has been no husband-wife contact
since August 7, 2007. On August 7, 2009, the High Court heard both writ
petitions and issued an order mandating that the child’s DNA be tested at the
SCB Medical College and Hospital in Cuttack and that the appellant likewise
furnishes a blood sample for DNA testing. Being unsatisfied with the Order, the
appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.

Apex Court’s observations

1. The use of DNA in a case where the paternity of a child is being debated in
Court is a delicate and sensitive topic. One point of view is that when
contemporary science provides ways of determining a child’s paternity,
there should be no hesitation in using such techniques whenever the need
arises. The opposing point of view is that the Court should be cautious
about using scientific developments and instruments that infringe on an
individual’s right to privacy and may not only be adverse to the parties’
rights but also have terrible consequences for the child. Even though the
child’s parents were living together at the time of conception, the results of
such scientific tests might sometimes taint an innocent child. When there
appears to be a contradiction between a person’s right to privacy and the
Court’s responsibility to find the truth, it is to be believed that the Court
should exercise its discretion only after weighing the parties’ interests and
considering whether DNA is crucially needed for a reasonable conclusion.
2. Given the nature of the proceedings before the High Court, it must be
concluded that the High Court exceeded its authority in issuing the
challenged order. Surprisingly, the High Court overlooked the crucial fact
that the couples’ marriage dispute was already proceeding in a court of
competent jurisdiction and that the court will adjudicate and resolve all
issues of the matrimonial dispute brought by the parties in that case.
Therefore, it is not possible to sustain the order passed by the High Court.
3. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby setting aside the Order of
the High Court dated August 7, 2009, and the Order of the Orissa State

11/17
 Commission for Women dated May 11, 2009. The Apex Court further
observed that the appellant shall be at liberty to contest the claim of
maintenance from the respondent on all available grounds and the
concerned court shall consider and determine such claim in accordance
with the law on its own merits.

Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen @

Harpreet Kaur (2009)
In the case of Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur (2009),
the Supreme Court of India was considering an appeal directed against the
Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgement and order dated 1 July 2008 in
Crl.Misc.No.14793-M of 2008, in which the appellant’s application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the orders
dated 25 July 2007 and 6 November 2007 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, granting Rs.10,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the respondent-wife was dismissed.

Facts of the case

The appellant in light to this case had contended that the sum ordered by the
Magistrate to the respondent-wife was unjustifiable. The appellant-husband
had also raised a concern about the maintainability of the application under
Section 125 CrPC due to the respondent’s ability to support herself. On behalf
of the respondent-wife, it has been argued that, in light of the appellant’s net
salary, the amount assessed by way of interim maintenance by the Magistrate
and upheld by the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court could not be said to
be excessive, and the fact that the appellant had taken a home loan that was
adjusted against his salary is no reason to change the amount, as had been
granted.

Supreme Court’s decision

12/17
 1. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the amount granted by way of
interim maintenance is on the high side, given that the appellant is getting
a sum of around Rs.9000/- in hand after deduction of different sums,
including the instalments towards repayment of the house loan. At the
same time, the Court could not ignore the fact that the respondent-wife is
now unemployed, or that there is no evidence on record that she was
employed in any capacity. However, given her qualifications, there was no
reason why she shouldn’t be able to support herself in the future.
2. The Apex Court modified the learned Magistrate’s order granting
Rs.10,000/- per month in interim maintenance to the respondent-wife
and directed that the appellant-husband pay the respondent-wife
Rs.5000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/-, with all other terms and
conditions as stipulated by the learned Magistrate continuing to apply.

Anu Kaul v. Rajeev Kaul (2009)

The Supreme Court of India was hearing an appeal filed by the respondent-
husband in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, aggrieved by the judgement
and decree passed by Addl. District Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court No.3,
Faridabad, as the appellant had filed an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of interim maintenance of Rs.
10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 22,000/-, in the present case of Anu
Kaul v. Rajeev Kaul (2009). The appellant confesses in her application that she
is working and receives a monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. However, she claims
that due to the lis (an action) between the parties, she is obligated to pay
Rs.3,000/- in rent to the tenanted premises where she is now residing. She also
indicated that her daughter is now grown-up, studying in Senior High School
and that her education is being delayed owing to a lack of funding.

Supreme Court’s observation

1. The Apex Court did not intend to increase the interim maintenance
ordered to the appellant by the High Court during the pendency of the

13/17
 husband’s appeal because she was working and earns Rs.9,000/- per
month.
2. However, the Court deemed it proper to direct the respondent to pay a
sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant for the maintenance of their
daughter during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court, taking
into account the child being the daughter of a high-ranking officer, the
exorbitant fee structure in good schools, and the cost of living.
3. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2007)

The respondent (Sita Bai) in the present case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2007)
had filed an application for maintenance from the appellant (Chaturbhuj)
under Section 125 of the CrPC. Undisputedly, the appellant and the respondent
married nearly four decades ago and had been living apart for more than two
decades. She stated in her application that she was jobless and unable to
support herself. Appellant had retired as Assistant Director of Agriculture and
was receiving a pension of around Rs.8,000/- and a comparable amount in
housing rent. Apart from that, he was lending money to individuals at a profit.
The appellant sought a maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.

The appellant claimed that the applicant was residing in a home built by the
appellant, who had acquired seven bighas of property in Ratlam in the
applicant’s name. She rented out the house and lived with one of their sons
since 1979. On March 13, 2003, the applicant sold the agricultural land. The
profits of the transaction were still in the applicant’s possession. The appellant
was receiving a monthly pension of around Rs. 5,700/- and was not paying
housing rent on a regular basis. He was being paid between 2,000 and 3,000
rupees every month. In the instant case the Trial Court, the Revisional Court,
and the High Court have analysed the evidence and held that the respondent-
wife was unable to maintain herself and is therefore eligible for the same.

Supreme Court’s observations

14/17
 1. The Apex Court observed that the purpose of maintenance procedures is to
discourage vagrancy by requiring those who can offer assistance to do so
for people who are unable to maintain themselves and have a moral right
to support. In this scenario, the statement “unable to sustain herself”
would refer to the means accessible to the deserted wife while she was still
living with her husband, and would not include the woman’s efforts to
subsist the following desertion.
2. The Court further noted that in the hypothetical event of a woman who
was surviving by begging, her capacity to support herself would be
insufficient. It is also not true to say that the wife was not capable of
earning money, but she did not make an attempt to do so. The data on
record must be used to determine if the deserted wife was unable to
support herself. If the wife’s personal income is insufficient, she can file a
claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The test is if the wife
can sustain herself in the manner in which she was accustomed in the
absence of her spouse.
3. The appeal was dismissed and the Apex Court did not consider it
appropriate to interfere in the same.

Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri (2000)

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri
(2000) centred on the question of whether a wife who has been granted a
divorce because she deserted her husband can claim maintenance allowance
under Section 125 CrPC, and how far can the plea of desertion be considered an
effective plea in support of the husband’s refusal to pay her maintenance
allowance.

Facts of the case

On the 10th of May, 1990, the petitioner, who is a soldier of the Indian Army,
married the respondent. The respondent is stated to have left the petitioner’s
family home in 1991 and moved to her father’s home. On the 5th of August,
1991, a notice was given to the respondent for restoration of conjugal rights due

15/17
to her unwillingness to return. The petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of
the marriage based on desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. In her defence, the respondent cited several claims, including
maltreatment and cruelty, as well as the petitioner’s demand for Rs. 21,000 in
damages and a scooter. On the 28th of May, 1993, during the pendency of the
divorce proceedings, the respondent filed an application for maintenance
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was granted
by the Family Court, Meerut. The petitioner appealed the Family Court’s
decision in Meerut in a revision petition filed in the High Court, but the same
was rejected on March 23, 1999.

Supreme Court’s observations

1. The respondent continues to be “wife” within the meaning of Section 125

CrPC due to Explanation (b) to Sub-section (1), even if the marital ties
were ended by the divorce issued by the Family Court under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The Court further observed that the respondent is entitled to maintenance
as a wife unless she has one of the limitations listed in Section 125 (4) of
CrPC. As a divorced woman also, she has the right to seek maintenance
from the person with whom she was previously married. A woman after
divorce becomes destitute. If she is unable to support herself or remains
unmarried, the man who was formerly her husband will still be obligated
to give her support.

Conclusion
In marital conflicts, the maintenance idea aims to return the woman to the
same level of comfort and lifestyle that she had before the marriage. In India,
there is no set amount of maintenance that a husband must give his wife, and
the amount of maintenance that the husband must pay, whether monthly or in
one lump payment, is determined at the discretion of a family court. Wife
maintenance is a tricky topic under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and it has

16/17
been regarded as a manner of taking advantage of the husband by asking for
food for life. Thus, the judiciary is the only reliance in such matters and
therefore the purpose behind this article is to highlight the view of the Supreme
Court of India with respect to maintenance of the wife by their husbands.

17/17