Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Jitendrabhai Mahendrabhai Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Apekshaben Rameshbhai Rajyaguru – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner – husband has challenged the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.198/2013, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month along with cost of application of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent – wife.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Pruthivraj Solanki for learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the petitioner, learned advocate, Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya for the respondent no.1 and learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent no.2 – State of Gujarat.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – husband got married with the respondent – wife on 09.12.2001 and after the marriage, both started residing together along with the family of the petitioner – husband but somehow in the year 2009, the respondent – wife left her matrimonial house without any reason and, thereafter, she filed an application for maintenance before the learned Family Judge, Bhavnagar being Criminal Misc. Application No.198/2013 inter al
The court affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance unless disqualified, emphasizing the husband's obligation to support her, especially when she has been subjected to harassment.
Maintenance – Obligation of husband is on a higher pedestal when question of maintenance of wife and children arises.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it is a measure of social justice to protect women and child....
The judgment emphasizes the duty to prevent destitution and vagrancy, the need for evidence to establish income, and the balancing of interests and financial capacity in determining maintenance under....
Interim maintenance – There is no bar to seek maintenance both under DV Act and under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or under Hindu Marriage Act or even under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The judgment reinforces the principle that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, reflecting her needs and his financial capacity.
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.
There is no bar to seek maintenance under different statutes, and the amount awarded should not overlap and should be inclusive of maintenance under each jurisdiction and not exclusive.
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC is a statutory duty, and the assessment of maintenance must consider the husband's income and the wife's financial needs....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article