Supreme Court Examines the Scope and Object of Maintenance to Spouse while Enhancing the Maintenance Amount to Wife

Supreme Court Examines the Scope and Object of Maintenance to Spouse while Enhancing the Maintenance Amount to Wife

In a recent judgment it has been held that "the object of maintenance proceedings is well settled. The provision is intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance." Maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity. Further, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020] GCtR 1011 (SC), Court reiterated that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband.

Deductions in Maintenance

The determination of maintenance must be guided by a balanced assessment of the earning capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife. In the facts of this case it was not in dispute that the respondent is in salaried employment and has a regular source of income. The Family Court, while determining maintenance, appears to have accorded considerable weight to deductions reflected in the salary, and the High Court has, to an extent, corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the amount.

Financial Commitments of Husband and Impact

It was held that "deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be placed on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements."

Dignity of Wife 

Enhancing the amount it was held that the obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. 

Case Reference : Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi [2026] GCtR 327 (SC)

Whether Daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from Father-in-law ? Supreme Court Clarifies the Issue

Whether Daughter-in-law can Claim Maintenance from Father-in-law ? Supreme Court Clarifies the Issue

"S.19 of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 contemplates for the maintenance of the daughter-in-law during the lifetime of father-in-law, whereas, S.22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughter-in-law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under S. 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law. "

Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma [2026] GCtR 39 (SC)

Character Assassination of Spouse & View of Supreme Court

 Character Assassination of Spouse & View of Supreme Court 

In an important case, the crucial issue was discussed and answered in following manner :

"The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by Court."

"On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, it was found that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court."

"It was found that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.”

Refer Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate [2003] GCtR 4332 (SC).

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.