Karnataka High Court

Smt Megha Alias Meghana W/O Sunil ... vs Sunil S/O Dasharath Kuradekar on 20 February, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                             -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496
                                                     WP No. 100425 of 2025




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      DHARWAD BENCH

                       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 100425 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. MEGHA ALIAS MEGHANA
                   W/O SUNIL KURADEKAR
                   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                   OCC: HOUSEHOLD
                   R/O VADDARA ONI, ALAMATTI
                   NOW R/AT POLICE QUARTERS BLOCK NO. 1
                   HOUSE NO.1, NAVANAGAR
                   BAGALKOT - 587 101.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA S.SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
                   AND:
PATTIHAL
Location: High
court of           SUNIL S/O DASHARATH KURADEKAR
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench,
                   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
Dharwad
                   OCC: CONSTABLE AT ARMY
                   PHALAPUR NAGAR, DELHI
                   R/O VADDARA ONI, ALAMATTI
                   TQ: NIDAGUNDI
                   DIST: VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.

                                                                ...RESPONDENT

                   (BY SRI. PRAKASH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
                                      -2-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496
                                              WP No. 100425 of 2025




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
ORDER     ON    IA   NO.III,   DATED    22/11/2024    IN
CRL.MISC.NO.61/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT AT BAGALKOT, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW
THE IA NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED
IN APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                                 ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calls in question an

order passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Bagalkote in

Crl. Misc. No. 61/2023 on an application filed in I.A.No. III by

the petitioner - wife seeking interim maintenance. The

concerned Court, by its order dated 22.11.2024, passes an

award granting interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- p.m.,

enhancement of which is sought in the subject petition by the

petitioner - wife.

2. Heard Sri. Siddappa S. Sajjan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Prakash Hosmani, learned counsel for the

respondent.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

3. Fact in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner is the wife and respondent the husband.

The two get married on 20.01.2022. The issue in the lis is the

relationship between the husband and wife floundered and on

such floundering of the relationship, the wife institutes

proceedings seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband

in Criminal Miscellaneous No.61/2023 invoking Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. The wife files an application in I.A. No. III seeking

interim maintenance. The concerned Court grants interim

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the petitioner at the hands

of the husband. It is this order that drives the petitioner - wife

to this Court seeking enhancement of maintenance on the

ground that it is too meager to maintain herself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that the respondent - husband is working as a Constable in the

Indian Army, getting a salary of Rs.78,367/- p.m. and also

owns a house and agricultural property. The respondent has

the capacity to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/-

p.m. as claimed by the petitioner since the respondent is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

getting an income of Rs.10,00,000 /- p.a. in total and is leading

a luxurious life. At the time of marriage, the parents of the

petitioner gave Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry alongwith ten tolas of

gold and utensils worth Rs.4,00,000/-. The petitioner was

physically tortured by the respondent on the instigation of his

mother and sisters and the respondent also demanded dowry

from her which led the petitioner in filing a case under Section

498(A) of IPC and under the Dowry prohibition Act against her

husband. The petitioner deserted the matrimonial home in July,

2022 and has since been residing in her parental house. The

petitioner is incapacitated and is unable to work. The concerned

Court fails to properly consider the documents produced by the

petitioner and the award of interim maintenance passed

without assigning any reasons, is too meagre.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend

that the petitioner was involved in an illicit relationship with

another person which was brought to his notice by his sister-in-

law. Despite the respondent requesting the petitioner not to

talk to other men over the phone and lead her marital life

properly, the petitioner continued the same. After the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

respondent returned from duty on 28.6.2021, the respondent

confronted the petitioner with messages and videos of her

talking to other men before the panchayat, where she was

abused. The petitioner went back to her parental home in July,

2022 and gave a false complaint before the Women Police

Station. The police advised them and the petitioner admitted

that she will return to her matrimonial home and will not use

her phone. The petitioner thereafter, returned back to her

matrimonial home on 05.09.2022 and was again caught by her

husband using her phone and talking to other men. Despite

this, the respondent allowed her to lead her marital life till

November, 2022 after which the respondent had to return back

to duty. Thereafter, the petitioner went to her parental house

voluntarily without informing her in-laws and also took her

belongings, gold and silver items with her. The petitioner

refused to come back to her matrimonial home and filed a false

criminal case in Crime No. 8/2023. The respondent filed M.C.

No. 17/2023 before the concerned Court seeking divorce, after

which the petitioner files the petition for interim maintenance.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. The issue

lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the petitioner/wife is

entitled to enhancement/modification in maintenance what is

awarded by the concerned Court. The marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute and the

petitioner deserting the matrimonial house and residing in the

parental house from July,2022 is what is averred in the petition

by the wife. The petitioner alleges that she was physically

tortured by the respondent and he also demanded dowry from

her which led the petitioner in filing a case under Section

498(A) of IPC against the respondent. The respondent files

M.C. No.17/2023 seeking divorce. The petitioner files an

application in I.A. No. III seeking interim maintenance of

Rs.30,000/- p.m. The concerned Court after considering the

period of separation and the current rate of inflation and

standard of living, grants interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

p.m. at the hands of the husband to the wife and also observes

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

that the respondent failed to produce any materials showing

any materials to show that he sent money to his wife to

support herself, during the two alleged years of separation and

the petitioner - wife would require some money to maintain

herself.

8. The concept of grant of maintenance has been the

subject matter of plethora of proceedings before the Apex

Court. Maintenance to be paid to the wife is trite, that it is not

maintenance for mere existence; it is for a living. Living would

be in consonance with the varying cost of living or cost of

expenses.

9. Now, what is to be noticed is whether the wife would be

entitled to any enhancement of maintenance. The Apex Court

in the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHID KHAN1 has

held as follows:

".... .... ....

14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his retirement. It has come on record that the husband was getting a monthly salary of Rs

(2015) 5 SCC 705

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

17,654. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs 2000. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs 2000 per month.

It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able- bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12, para 8)

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

"8. ... The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been ruled that: (SCC p. 320, para 6)

"6. ... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v.Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC OnLine Del para 7)

7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that sustenance of a woman does not and

cannot mean mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to

leave the matrimonial house, should not be allowed to feel that

she has fallen from the grace and move hither and thither

arranging for sustenance. The Apex Court holds that the

quantum of maintenance should be qua the life she was leading

with her husband. In a later judgment the Apex Court in the

case of REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN2 has held

as follows:

".... .... ....

13. Be that as it may, the High Court took into account all the relevant aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding that he was well educated and an able bodied person. Therefore, it was not open to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his wife. It would be apposite to advert to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which reads thus : (Reema Salkan case [Reema Salkan v.

(2019) 12 SCC 303

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

Sumer Singh Salkan, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9380 : (2018) 250 DLT 16] , SCC OnLine Del paras 80-84)

"80. The respondent during the cross-examination has admitted that he too is BCom, MA (Eco) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA; the respondent is a Canadian citizen working with Sprint Canada and is earning Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59 as net annual salary. However, he has claimed that he has resigned from Sprint Canada on 23-11-2010 and the same has been accepted on 27-11-2010 and the respondent since then is unemployed and has got no source of income to maintain himself and his family.

81. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the case under Section 125 CrPC, 1973 for grant of maintenance as she does not know any skill and specialised work to earn her livelihood i.e. in Para 26 of maintenance petition against her husband. However, the respondent husband who is well educated and comes from extremely respectable family simply denies the same. The respondent husband in his written statement does not plead that he is not an able-bodied person nor he is able to prove sufficient earning or income of the petitioner.

82. It is an admitted fact emerging on record that both the parties got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 24-3-2002 and since then the petitioner was living with her parents from 10-8-2002 onwards, and the parents are under no legal obligation to maintain a married daughter whose husband is living in Canada and having Canadian citizenship. The plea of the respondent that he does not have any source of income and he could not maintain the wife is no answer as he is mature and an able-bodied person having good health and physique and he can earn enough on the basis of him being able- bodied to meet the expenses of his wife. In this context, the observation made in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] by this Court is relevant and reproduced as under

: (SCC OnLine Del para 7).

'7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child.'

83. The husband being an able-bodied person is duty-bound to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself under the personal law arising out of the marital status and is not under contractual obligation. The following observation of the Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 :

(2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200 : AIR 2014 SC 2875] , is relevant : (SCC p. 357, para 2)

'2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband.

That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.'

84. The respondent's mere plea that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife in presence of good physique along with educational qualification."

(emphasis in original)

14. The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. Indeed, the respondent has raised a plea to question the correctness of the said view, in the reply- affidavit filed in this appeal, but in our opinion, the finding recorded by the High Court is unexceptionable.

15. The only question is : whether the quantum of maintenance amount determined by the High Court is just and proper. The discussion in respect of this question can be traced only to para 85 of the impugned judgment which reads thus : (Reema Salkan case [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9380 : (2018) 250 DLT 16] , SCC OnLine Del)

"85. So far the quantum of maintenance is concerned, nothing consistent is emerging on record to show the specific amount which is being earned by the respondent after 2010, however, the husband is legally bound to maintain his wife as per the status of a respectable family to which he belongs. The husband being able-bodied along with high qualification BCom, MA (Eco) and MBA from Kentucky University, USA could earn at least minimum of Rs 18,332 as per the current minimum wage in Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner being wife is entitled to Rs 9000 per month from 9-12-2010 onwards till further orders."

16. The principle invoked by the High Court for determination of monthly maintenance amount payable to the appellant on the basis of notional minimum income of the respondent as per the current minimum wages in Delhi, in our opinion, is untenable. We are of the considered opinion that regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

2015; coupled with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea has been taken by him that he is unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his monthly income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over Rs 1,77,364; and that this Court in Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 312] has prima facie found that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant is granted an interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month commencing from 1-11-2014. At this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs 20,000 per month to the appellant towards the maintenance amount with effect from January 2010 and at the rate of Rs 25,000 per month with effect from 1-6 2018 until further orders. We order accordingly.

17. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the enhanced maintenance amount, as determined in terms of this order, to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from today after duly adjusting the amount already deposited in Court/paid to the appellant till date. The appellant will be entitled to forthwith withdraw the maintenance amount deposited by the respondent in Court, if any. The impugned judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified in the aforementioned terms."

(Emphasis supplied)

Here again, the Apex Court holds the quantum of maintenance

should be determined on the basis of manifold factors, more

particularly, the spiraling inflation rate, and high cost of living

index of the day, as also the husband being able-bodied man

and his earning is enough and more to take care of the wife

and child, as the case would be. The purport of Section 125 of

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

the Cr.P.C., is elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of

ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG3 The

Apex Court has held as follows:

".... .... ....

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Family Court, in the instant case had not only over-looked and disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no. 2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant wife.

12. Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son.

14. It is accordingly directed that the respondent shall pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of filing of her Maintenance Petition before the Family Court. The entire amount of arrears shall be deposited by the respondent in the Family Court within eight weeks from today, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by him."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that it is the sacrosanct duty of the

husband to provide financial support to the wife and the

husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and

take care of the wife.

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3496

10. The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, directs

consideration of enhancement of maintenance on a case to

case basis. Due regard should be had to certain relevant factors

like social status of the parties and the kind of life that the wife

was living while both of them were staying together. It is not