In an order dated June 2019, Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a trial court order that rejected maintenance application by a woman. Primary reason given by both courts was the fact that wife was living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason.
A bench of Justice Srivastava passed the order in the matter where he denied maintenance to the woman, however, the court has ordered the man to pay expenses for their minor son, who lives with the mother.
Petitioner-applicant No.1 is wife of respondent and petitioner-applicant No.2 is son of respondent-husband. As per allegations by the wife, respondent is not maintaining them. They are living separately due to alleged torture and harassment by respondent-husband. Thus the petitioners prayed that they are entitled to get maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month from respondent.
In his defence, respondent filed reply before trial court in which he submits that he is ill due to which he could not do any work and hence has no source of income. Petitioners are living separately without any sufficient reason so they are not entitled to get any maintenance.
Learned trial court held that petitioner-applicant No.1 is living separately from respondent-husband without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent.
High Court Observation
It is evident that petitioner applicant No.1 is wife of respondent. Petitioner-applicant No.1 admitted in her cross-examination that respondent does not do any work due to illness, so she left his house and she is living in her paternal home with her child. She is not ready to live with respondent. So, it is evident that petitioner No.1 is living separately from her husband-respondent, without any sufficient reason. Therefore, learned trial court appreciate each and every fact in this regard so petitioner-application No.1 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband…
Noting with regards to maintenance to minor son, court said:
Respondent has some agricultural land but respondent is below poverty line and has low income, which appears from the cross-examination of the petitioner No.1 before the trial court, so petitioner-applicant No.2 is entitled to get maintenance from his father-respondent.