Back
denies maintenance to wife who left home during COVID without
In a significant ruling that underscores the criteria for spousal maintenance, the has dismissed a revision petition filed by a wife who sought maintenance after leaving her matrimonial home during the COVID-19 pandemic to care for her ailing parents and subsequently refusing to return.
A single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, in an order dated , upheld the decision of the , which had rejected the wife's claim for maintenance while granting relief only to her younger daughter.
The Story So Far
The marriage between Mrs. K. R. Roopa and Mr. B. M. Muralidhar was solemnized in . The couple lived together for over 25 years without major disturbance. In , during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the wife left the matrimonial home to care for her parents and sister, who had contracted the virus. Around the same time, her father also suffered a heart attack. According to the husband, he repeatedly requested her to return, but she refused and eventually lodged a police complaint against him when he visited her parents' house to bring her back.
The wife, along with her two daughters, had filed a petition under seeking maintenance. While the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 8,000 per month to the younger daughter and bear her educational expenses, it rejected the claims of both the wife and the elder daughter (who was already employed). Aggrieved by the denial, the wife approached the High Court.
What the Wife Argued
The petitioner, through her counsel , contended that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to harassment and cruelty by her husband. She argued that sufficient evidence was produced to show the circumstances that drove her away, but the Family Court overlooked this and erroneously denied her maintenance. She sought setting aside of the impugned order and grant of maintenance as claimed.
The Husband's Defence
The respondent, represented by , countered that the wife left voluntarily to care for her COVID-affected family members and never had any intention of returning. He asserted that he had always provided for his wife and children, even purchasing a house site in her name by obtaining a loan. He had also ensured proper education for both daughters, including enrolling the younger one in Kendriya Vidyalaya. According to him, when he went to bring her back, she filed a false police complaint, and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance.
The Court's Reasoning
The High Court carefully examined the evidence and the Family Court's findings. It noted that the wife's own complaint (Ex.R1) stated she went to her maternal home to care for her parents and sister due to COVID and her father's heart attack, not because of any cruelty by the husband. Additionally, her statement to the police (Ex.R3) confirmed that the husband had approached her parents' house asking her to return.
The court emphasised that under , a wife is entitled to maintenance only if she proves: (i) her husband neglected or refused to maintain her, (ii) she is , and (iii) her husband has sufficient means. Importantly, leaving the matrimonial home without acts as a .
"The primary object of
corresponding to
is to do
, prevent exploitation, protect vulnerable and uphold human dignity. However, grant is not automatic,"
the court observed.
Regarding the wife's allegations of cruelty, the court noted that
"no substantive proof was produced to that effect before the Family Court."
It further found that the husband had not neglected or refused to maintain her; on the contrary, he had taken care of the family's needs, including purchasing a house in the wife's name.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court made several pivotal observations that clarify the law on maintenance:
"Leaving matrimonial home without justification and
is certainly a
to seek maintenance from husband."
"In the case on hand, neither refusal nor neglect are found. Petitioner failed to establish that there exists
due to which she
of the respondent."
"When wife fails to meet
or her case attracts disqualifications, her claim is liable to be rejected."
The Verdict
Ultimately, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's findings. It held that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it, thereby upholding the denial of maintenance to the wife. The order for the younger daughter's maintenance and educational expenses remains unchanged.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder that the right to maintenance is not automatic. A wife who voluntarily leaves her matrimonial home without a valid reason and fails to prove by her husband cannot claim maintenance, even if she is unable to support herself.
