In a recent ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Prem Narayan Singh, emphasized that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should not be used to create "an army of idle people waiting for maintenance." The judgment came as the court reduced the maintenance awarded to a wife in a matrimonial dispute from ?25,000 to ?20,000 per month, stating that while a husband must support his wife, the amount must be "reasonable and realistic," considering her qualifications and ability to earn.
The case involved Amit Goyal, who challenged the Family Court's decision to award ?25,000 per month to his wife and ?15,000 for their daughter. Goyal argued that his wife, being a qualified individual with previous work as an actress and model, was capable of supporting herself. He also cited his own financial struggles.
The court agreed that while a husband is obligated to provide for his wife, the wife's qualifications and previous work experience justified a reduction in the amount. The court stressed that maintenance should not become oppressive for the husband, nor should it drive the wife into hardship. The maintenance for the couple's daughter remained unchanged, ensuring she continues to receive support until adulthood.
Justice Singh's ruling highlighted that a woman's qualifications should be considered, but not automatically disqualify her from maintenance, as her ability to find stable income can still be uncertain. This balance between support and self-reliance was a key theme of the judgment.
Advotalks: Talk To Lawyers https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
