Back
Gujarat HC: An LLB Can't Silence a Divorced Wife's Right to Maintenance
In a ruling that underscores the enduring duty of husbands to support ex-wives, the dismissed a plea by Dhruti Vinubhai Dodiya seeking to hike her monthly maintenance from Rs 10,000 to Rs 25,000. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar upheld the Family Court's order under , affirming that a professional degree like LLB is no bar to such claims—even as the singer-husband remarried and started a second family.
From Love Marriage to Lonely Struggle
The saga began with a love marriage on December 29, 2008, in Asarva, Ahmedabad, celebrated per Hindu rites. Bliss soured after six months amid alleged dowry harassment, alcohol addiction, and cruelty from her husband—a professional singer organizing events in India, the UK, Africa, and Kenya—and his family. By December 2013, the couple lived separately in a rented home, but tensions persisted, driving Dhruti back to her parents. A divorce deed followed on May 26, 2016.
Post-divorce, with no financial support forthcoming, Dhruti filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 2787 of 2016 before the . An interim Rs 2,000 monthly award went unpaid, triggering recovery suits and even imprisonment orders against the husband. The Family Court finally granted Rs 10,000 per month on January 11, 2022, a figure Dhruti challenged via revision, while the husband's own appeal (Criminal Revision No. 319 of 2022) was rejected by another bench on February 1, 2023.
Wife's Plea: 'His Fame Pays, My Needs Suffer'
Dhruti argued the Rs 10,000 was "grossly inadequate," spotlighting her medical needs and the husband's "substantial income" from global gigs—admitted in cross-examination. She urged at least Rs 25,000, claiming the Family Court undervalued his earnings despite evidence of foreign travels and events. Her LLB and advocacy practice, she conceded, but insisted it didn't negate her reliance on maintenance.
Husband's Defense: 'Daily Wage Earner with New Burdens'
Countering, the husband claimed meager Rs 200-250 daily from singing, post-divorce remarried with a son. He filed liability statements, arguing his obligations extended to the second family. The Family Court pegged his income at Rs 30,000-33,000 monthly via the "able-bodied" principle, sans documents, and awarded roughly one-third to Dhruti—fair, he said.
Balancing Duties: Precedents Light the Way
Justice Suthar meticulously reviewed the record, invoking Supreme Court wisdom from
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015 (6) SCC 353). There, the apex court held husbands cannot evade maintenance liability—it's a "legal and ethical duty" to ensure the wife and children enjoy their prior living standard.
"He cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father,"
the HC echoed.
The bench rejected interference, finding no "patent error" per Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012 (9) SCC 460) on revisional limits. Noting Dhruti's divorcee status since 2016 entitled her to support as "social welfare legislation," it dismissed LLB as a denial ground—aligning with reports emphasizing this nuance.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Merely because the applicant possesses an LL.B. degree cannot be a ground to refuse maintenance and the said aspect has also been considered by the Family Court."
"It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father to maintain his legally wedded wife and children."
"The learned Family Judge has considered his income to be Rs.33,000/- per month... awarded Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance, which appears to be just and proper, as approximately one-third of his income has been awarded towards maintenance."
"Nothing has come on record to show that the learned Family Judge committed any error in considering the income of the respondent-husband at Rs.30,000/- to Rs.33,000/- per month."
No Hike, But Door Ajar for Future
The revision stands dismissed (R/CR.RA/616/2022, April 6, 2026), preserving Rs 10,000 monthly. Yet, Justice Suthar left room: future changes allow modification applications. This reinforces divorced wives' rights under CrPC 125, prioritizing support over qualifications, while courts weigh full family pictures—potentially guiding similar claims nationwide.
