Son taking care of parents can't be ground for wife to desert him and claim maintenance: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a lack of harmony with in-laws or a husband caring for his parents cannot be cited as a ground for his wife to abandon her matrimonial home and subsequently claim maintenance.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that it is unreasonable to expect a man to sever ties with or withdraw attention from his parents only to appease his wife.

The Court further highlighted that a son maintaining his parents is normal in Indian culture.

"In the realm of matrimonial jurisprudence, a lack of harmony with in-laws or a husband dedicating attention and care to his parents and family members cannot, under any circumstance, be construed as a justifiable or sufficient ground for a wife to abandon the matrimonial home and subsequently claim maintenance. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos ... The expectation that a husband must severe ties with or withdraw attention from his parents to appease his wife is legally recognized as unreasonable" the Court's July 8 ruling said.

The Court made these observations while dealing with a man's plea challenging a family court order directing him to pay maintenance of ₹20,000 per month to his estranged wife and two children.

The family court passed the order after noting that there was a lack of harmony between the wife and her matrimonial family, and that the husband was paying more attention to his family members than to her. This was the sole reason cited for the wife's decision to reside separately from her husband.

The husband approached the High Court challenging this ruling and the award of maintenance to his wife. He argued that his wife left voluntarily without any sufficient cause. She was, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance payment. He cited Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which says that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her estranged husband if she is living separately from him without any sufficient case.

The husband further highlighted that his wife had also pressed false cruelty charges against him and his family under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which ended in acquittal.

The High Court noted that this acquittal completely demolished any defense of cruelty as a justification for the wife's separate residence.

The Court also took strong exception to the fact that during connected civil proceedings, the wife had pressed baseless allegations accusing the husband of having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law.

"Such character assassination is recognized as the most severe form of mental cruelty," the Court said.

The Court concluded that the wife had completely failed to establish any justifiable reason to reside separately.

Accordingly, the High Court found the family court's reasoning for the awrd of maintenance to the wife to be legally unsustainable.

However, the Court did not disturb the maintenance ordered to be paid for the benefit of the couple's minor children.

Advocate Nilesh Dave appeared for the husband.

Advocate Neelesh Agrawal represented the respondents.