Recently, the Gujarat High Court delivered a sharp reminder that maintenance is not charity but a legal right, refusing to accept a husband’s plea of financial distress while upholding Rs.50,000 monthly support to his wife suffering from cancer.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging neglect and lack of financial support after years of strained relations. The Family Court at Anand, after examining financial records and evidence, directed the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month, which he challenged before the High Court claiming business losses and limited income.
Opposing the plea, the wife argued that the husband had deliberately concealed his real income, pointing to his business activities, high-value transactions, and lifestyle, including foreign travel. She also highlighted her medical condition, stating that she was undergoing cancer treatment and required substantial financial support.
The High Court rejected the husband’s arguments, observing that income tax returns cannot be treated as the sole indicator of actual earnings, especially in matrimonial disputes where income is often understated. The Court emphasised that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his responsibility and that even a wife capable of earning is entitled to maintenance if she cannot sustain herself in the standard of living she was accustomed to.
In a significant observation, the Court reiterated that a wife need not be “absolutely destitute” to claim maintenance and that the law ensures a dignified standard of living.
Finding no error in the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the revision application and upheld the Rs.50,000 monthly maintenance, noting that the amount was justified considering the husband’s earning capacity and the wife’s medical needs. All interim reliefs were also vacated.
Case Title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: R/Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ashish M. Dagli
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Darshit R. Brahmbhatt; Mr. Rohan Raval, APP
Read judgement @latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
