Wife Cannot Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is Educated: Madhya Pradesh High Court
In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, presided over by Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that being educated does not disqualify an individual from receiving maintenance.The applicant, Rahul Patel, sought a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh....
In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, presided over by Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that being educated does not disqualify an individual from receiving maintenance.
The applicant, Rahul Patel, sought a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh.
The impugned order mandated that the Petitioner pay Rs. 9,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Hemlata Malviya, the respondent who filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance. The couple married on 19th November 2011, according to Hindu customs and traditions.
The question of law in this case pertained to the entitlement of a spouse to maintenance and the criteria for awarding such maintenance.
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, allows for a revision petition to challenge the orders passed by a Family Court. The applicant must demonstrate that the original order was affected by illegality, irregularity, or impropriety. Patel's revision petition was predicated on the assertion that the maintenance order was unwarranted given the respondent's educational qualifications.
Upon hearing the arguments, the court dismissed the petition in limine, indicating that there was no prima facie case to consider. Justice Dwivedi emphasized that being educated does not disqualify an individual from receiving maintenance. The court noted that the purpose of maintenance is to ensure that a spouse, who is unable to support themselves, is provided for regardless of their educational background.
Justice Dwivedi observed that the impugned order was consistent with the legal principles governing maintenance. The amount of Rs. 9,000 per month was deemed appropriate, considering Patel's substantial monthly income of Rs. 80,000 and Malviya's lack of employment.
Case title: Rahul Patel Versus Hemlata Malviya
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 174
Citation: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3801 of 2024