Unjustified sympathy towards a husband without valid reasons does not serve justice: MP High Court increases temporary support for wife and children.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stated that in maintenance cases, courts should not show unnecessary sympathy towards the husband, as this does not benefit the wife and children who are living without support. The court was reviewing a petition under Section 397, 401 of the Cr.P.C. along with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, which sought to increase the interim maintenance amount. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia emphasized that the trial court must ensure that the wife and children maintain the same standard of living they would have had in their marital or parental home. Showing undue sympathy to the husband is not in the best interest of the wife and children, nor does it serve justice.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Romesh Pratap Singh, while the respondent did not have legal representation. The contested order provided the wife and son with interim maintenance of ₹2,000 and ₹1,000 per month, respectively. The petitioner’s counsel argued against this amount, presenting the respondent’s salary slip from February 2024, which showed a gross salary of ₹68,228 with statutory deductions of ₹14,278, leaving a take-home pay of ₹53,950. Regarding loans, it was argued that the respondent had already received the funds in advance, and any repayments should not be deducted from his take-home salary. Additionally, it was pointed out that the marriage took place on May 9, 2019, making the respondent’s claim that the loan was for marriage expenses untrue, as the loan was taken in February 2022.
The Court initially pointed out that the loan amount is essentially an advance payment, indicating that it is a voluntary deduction and the respondent has already received this money. “When calculating the take-home salary, only mandatory deductions should be considered. The voluntary loan taken by the husband should be disregarded. Thus, it is evident that in February 2024, the respondent’s take-home salary was Rs.53,950/-. Given these facts, the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- for applicant No.2 is surprisingly low,” the Court stated. The Court believed that there was no need for excessive sympathy towards the father and decided to increase the maintenance amounts.
“Taking into account the respondent’s take-home salary, this Court believes that the interim maintenance should be raised. Therefore, it is increased to Rs.10,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for applicant No.2,” the Court noted. The Court also stated that this amount should be paid from the date of the application, as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another.
Cause Title: Smt. Rekha Ahirwar and Others vs. Nirmal Chandra (2024:MPHC-GWL:21511)
