'Shirking From His Liability While Enjoying Expensive Bikes': MP High Court Upholds Order Directing Husband To Maintain Wife, Kids
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (September 22) dismissed a man's plea challenging a family court's maintenance order in favour of his wife and kids, noting that the husband was trying to shirk away from his liability while enjoying his life with expensive bikes. Justice Gajendra Singh noted that the dispute arose after the birth of their younger child, who faced significant medical...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (September 22) dismissed a man's plea challenging a family court's maintenance order in favour of his wife and kids, noting that the husband was trying to shirk away from his liability while enjoying his life with expensive bikes.
Justice Gajendra Singh noted that the dispute arose after the birth of their younger child, who faced significant medical and developmental challenges and said:
"this is the mother/ respondent no.1 who is taking the challenges of all odds but the father who should have to take more challenges or atleast should have support the respondent no.1/wife is shirking the liability for one or another reasons. He is enjoying the personal life with expensive bikes. Here is not a case when a wife is claiming maintenance for her luxuries but claiming the maintenance due to the circumstances arose due to equal participation of revision petitioner/ husband and it is the bounden duty of the revision petitioner/husband to bear that duty with all sincerity and use all the resources but the arguments advanced by the revision petition/husband does not reflect his sincerity".
The wife had filed an application before the Family Court seeking ₹2 lakhs a month as maintenance, including residence, medical treatment, transportation, etc. The wife had alleged that during her pregnancy, it was revealed that one of the twins was not in good health. It was also claimed that her mother-in-law wished that the unwell child ought to be aborted as he would be a liability to the family.
It was claimed that post the pregnancy, multiple acts of harassment and cruelty were committed. She further alleged that in March 2020, she and her kids were sent to her maternal home with no arrangements for maintenance or medical expenses of the children. She also alleged that the husband had sufficient means to pay maintenance, as he owned a transportation business and a luxurious home in Ahmedabad.
The husband, however, denied all allegations and claimed that the wife took all her sreedhan when she went to live in her maternal home. He also claimed that his wife, without providing sufficient cause, left her matrimonial house. It was also claimed that during the marriage, the wife failed to disclose that she had been suffering from Thalassemia since her childhood and due to the negligence of the wife, the child had also contracted health issues. He also claimed that his wife threatened to harm herself in case he did not comply with her desire to live at her maternal house.
However, the family court observed that the wife earned no income due to the health of their younger child, 'who is stroke affected and requires continuous care'. The family court also noted that the husband had a monthly income of ₹70,000/- to ₹80,000/-. Thus, the family court granted an amount of ₹15,000 to the wife (respondent no 1) and ₹7,000 and ₹12,000 to the minor children (respondent nos 2 and 3) to be calculated from the date of the application, i.e February 15, 2022.
The husband then approached the High Court, claiming that the trial court failed to take into consideration the status of the parties. He argued that the reasonable needs of the wife and children were not considered. The wife also filed a plea seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from ₹34,000/- to ₹2,00,000/-.
The bench examined the medical reports of the younder child and noted that he was diagnosed with cystic encephalomalacia on the left side of the brain and exevation dilation of both excipital bones and cortical laminar necrosis. The court further observed that, as a result of these conditions, the child needed full-time care.
Further, the bench concurred with the Family Court's finding that, despite holding an MBA degree, the wife was unable to earn a livelihood and support her minor children as she was fully occupied with the care of the younger child.
The court, thus, dismissed the husband's plea while imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on him to be payable to the wife. The court also dismissed the wife's plea seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
Case Title: LSB v SK (2025:MPHC-IND:27741)
Citation:
For Husband: Advocate Arpit Singh
For Wife: Advocate Saloni Ojha