Husband Shirking Liability for Ailing Child is Unacceptable; Bounden Duty to Maintain Family: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-22

Husband Shirking Responsibility for Ailing Child 'Unacceptable', High Court Upholds Maintenance Order

Indore, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has delivered a stern message on parental responsibility, dismissing a husband's plea to reduce a maintenance award for his wife and twin children, one of whom has serious health issues. Justice Gajendra Singh criticized the husband for "shirking the liability" while enjoying a luxurious lifestyle, underscoring his "bounden duty" to support his family.

The court upheld the Family Court's order directing Lovedeep Singh Bhatia to pay a total of ₹34,000 per month—₹15,000 to his wife Simran Kaur, and ₹7,000 and ₹12,000 respectively to their two minor children—from the date of the application in February 2022.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a maintenance application filed by Simran Kaur in the Family Court, Indore. She alleged harassment and neglect after the birth of her twin children in November 2019. One of the children, Sachman Singh, was born with health complications, requiring extensive medical care for a condition described as cystic encephalomalacia.

Kaur claimed that her husband's family was unsupportive of the ailing child and that she was sent to her maternal home in March 2020 without any financial support. She asserted that her husband, the proprietor of M/s. H.K. Bhatia Transport in Ahmedabad, had sufficient means, owning a luxurious home and earning a substantial income.

Arguments Before the Court

Husband's Plea for Reduction: Lovedeep Singh Bhatia challenged the Family Court's order, arguing that the maintenance amount of ₹34,000 was excessive. He claimed to have a modest income from two mini-trucks and significant expenses, including the care of his elderly, ailing parents. He contended that the court had not properly considered his actual income, the wife's educational qualifications (MBA), or that she was living separately without sufficient cause. He also cited the principles laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) , arguing they were not followed.

Wife's Plea for Enhancement: Simran Kaur, in a separate revision petition, sought an enhancement of the maintenance from ₹34,000 to ₹2,00,000 per month. She argued that the awarded amount was insufficient to cover the extensive medical and developmental needs of her twin children, particularly the specialized neuro-rehabilitation for her son. She pointed to the husband's luxurious lifestyle, including his ownership of a Harley Davidson motorcycle, as evidence that he was concealing his true income.

High Court's Rationale and Observations

Justice Gajendra Singh, after perusing the records, found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's decision. The court dismissed both the husband's plea for reduction and the wife's plea for enhancement.

The judgment highlighted the wife's inability to work despite her MBA degree due to the constant care required by her son. The court noted:

"Dispute arose after birth of respondent no.3 with challenges and 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."

The court emphasized that this was not a case of a wife seeking maintenance for luxuries but for circumstances arising from the "equal participation" of the husband. The court further stated:

"...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."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the husband's revision petition (Cr. Rev. No. 3235/2024), finding it without substance, and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 payable to the wife. The wife's petition for enhancement (Cr. Rev. No. 2477/2024) was also dismissed, with the court finding the amount awarded by the Family Court to be justified based on the evidence.

This judgment reinforces the legal and moral obligation of a parent, particularly the father, to provide for their children, especially when a child has special needs. It serves as a strong reminder that courts will look beyond on-paper income declarations to assess a person's lifestyle and actual capacity to pay maintenance.