India News

Wife is entitled to maintenance even if she earns: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she earns while disposing of the application challenging the quantum of maintenance granted by a family court.

Published

6 years ago

June 6, 2020

The High Court passed this order on the revision application filed by husband against the judgment of the Family Court wherein the judge had granted payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of application and amount of Rs 7,000/- as cost of litigation under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“the Code”).

A single-judge bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar, however, noted that the Family Court didn’t consider that the wife had a source of income from Beauty Parlour business.

“In the totality of the circumstances and upon consideration of the relevant factors including the income of the Respondent, the number of dependents upon the Respondent, the reasonable wants of the Applicant, in my considered view a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month would be a reasonable financial support to augment the income of the Applicant,” said Justice N.J. Jamadar.

Applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on November 12, 1997. The wife claimed, since the inception of marital life, she was treated with cruelty by her husband.

In April 2007, the respondent expressed desire to obtain divorce from the applicant. The wife claimed that in order to avoid harassment at the hands of her husband, she signed the mutual divorce petition documents on the assurance of her husband that he would continue to maintain the marital relationship with her despite a paper decree of divorce.

Accordingly, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained on 25th October, 2007. Despite, the decree of dissolution of marriage, the respondent continued to visit the applicant’s house. But from September 2012, the respondent stopped visiting the applicant’s house. The wife claimed that since she had no income to support her, she filed an application for award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month, under section 125 of the Code.

Meanwhile, the respondent (husband), who was remarried in 2011, told the family court that applicant wife had started beauty parlour business and was financially independent, and hence she decided to forego maintenance she is entitled to under Section 125 as part of the mutual agreement before the decree of divorce was passed. He also opposed the maintenance application citing losses in business.

The learned family Judge was of the view that the fact that the Applicant had given up her claim for maintenance when the decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed, does not detract materially from her claim as such an agreement not to claim maintenance or waive the right of maintenance was opposed to public policy.

The Applicant being a wife, despite being a divorcee, within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 125(1) of the Code, the agreement to reside separately from the Respondent does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance, held the learned Family Judge and fixed payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as maintenance to wife from the date of application.

Being aggrieved, the aforesaid reasons and findings the Respondent-husband invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The counsel for the Respondent-husband urged that the learned Judge, Family Court committed a manifest error in arriving at a finding that the Respondent had refused or neglected to maintain the Applicant and that the Applicant was unable to maintain herself.

Amplifying the submission, the learned counsel said that the Applicant having voluntarily relinquished her right of maintenance when the decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed on 25th October 2007, was not legally entitled to turn around and seek maintenance from the Respondent.

“The fact that the Applicant resides separately from the Respondent in pursuance of the decree of divorce, even if taken at par, thus does not disentitle the Applicant, being a divorced wife, from claiming maintenance, urged the learned counsel for the Applicant. The agreement not to claim maintenance which is in teeth of the statutory provision, the object of which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, does not operate as a bar to claim maintenance. Such an agreement, being opposed to the public policy, does not override the statutory ameliorative provisions,” urged the counsel for the Applicant.

Up Next

INDO-CHINA TALKS ON BORDER STANDOFF

Don't Miss

ABAP seeks Finance Minister’s directions to banks for loan to lawyers.

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

2 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

3 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

India News

Congress protests against Gyanesh Kumar, demands Election chief’s resignation

Congress workers took to the streets against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with protests and demonstrations held over the party’s allegations concerning the Election Commission.

Published

4 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Congress stepped up its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party workers taking to the streets and demanding his resignation amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission.

The protests followed repeated criticism by Congress leaders of the poll panel and its functioning. The party has alleged irregularities in the electoral process and has sought accountability from the Election Commission.

Congress leaders have also targeted Gyanesh Kumar personally, with Rahul Gandhi among those calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to step down.

Congress takes protest to streets

Congress workers staged demonstrations in different places as part of the party’s campaign against the Election Commission.

The protests featured sharp symbolism, including masks and handcuffs, as Congress sought to highlight its allegations against the poll panel and demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstrations are part of a wider confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

Congress demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

The Congress has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of failing to adequately address the concerns raised by the opposition party.

Rahul Gandhi has also stepped up his criticism of the poll panel. In a statement on Thursday, he demanded that Gyanesh Kumar resign and alleged that the Election Commission had acknowledged the issue of “vote theft”. These are allegations made by the Congress and should not be treated as an established finding unless confirmed by the relevant authority.

The dispute comes amid a broader political debate over electoral rolls, voter verification and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Election Commission under opposition scrutiny

The Congress has intensified its campaign against the poll body in recent weeks, with party leaders repeatedly questioning its decisions and procedures.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that India’s electoral process is conducted according to the Constitution, electoral laws and prescribed procedures. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has previously defended the integrity of the electoral system and rejected claims that electronic voting machines can be remotely hacked.

The latest protests add to the continuing political confrontation over the Election Commission and the opposition’s demands concerning the poll panel’s functioning.