#maintenancecase

Can a husband still be ordered to pay maintenance even when he says he personally did nothing wrong? The Bombay High Court has now answered this clearly.

NAGPUR: The Bombay High Court upheld maintenance granted to a wife after observing that a woman cannot be forced to live in an environment where she is allegedly facing humiliation, harassment, or loss of dignity.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke dismissed the husband’s revision plea and confirmed the Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance of Rs 7,000 per month from September 2024 onwards. Earlier, the Family Court had granted Rs 5,000 from Janu#BombayHighCourt #FamilyCourt #IndianFamilyLaw #LegalNewsIndia #MaintenanceCase #MaintenanceLaw #MarriageDispute #MatrimonialDispute #Section125CrPC #WifeMaintenanceary 2017 till December 2020 and Rs 6,000 till August 2024.

The husband, who was working as a Gangman in the Railway Department, argued that the wife had left the matrimonial house on her own without sufficient reason and therefore was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. He also argued that the wife filing a divorce case itself showed she was unwilling to stay with him.

Read Also: Atul Subhash vs Judge Aman vs Twisha Sharma: Is Justice Different For Men And Women?

The wife alleged that from the very first day after marriage, disputes started over dowry demands and she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. She specifically alleged that on June 4, 2014, she was assaulted with a waist belt, after which she approached the police station and later the Women Cell.

The Court noted that during cross-examination, the husband could not disprove the wife’s allegations regarding assault and harassment. The Court also observed that despite receiving notice, the husband chose not to contest the divorce proceedings filed by the wife.

While explaining the scope of Section 125 CrPC, the High Court made important observations on what amounts to “neglect” and “refusal” by a husband.

Read Also: What To Do If Wife Takes Child Away Illegally? Father’s Legal Remedies In India

The Court said:

“Since the object is to prevent vagrancy or destitution by means of a summary remedy before a Magistrate, jurisdiction is preventive rather than remedial or punitive.”

The Court further observed:

Read Also: Why I Believe 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS Needs Structural Reform To Prevent Misuse

“Neglect or refusal may be implied from the conduct of a party and need not be a formal refusal. Refusal or neglect on the part of husband may be proved not only by express words, but also by his conduct.”

In one of the most significant observations, the Court held:

Read Also: Wife Filed False Case — What Should I Do Immediately? Legal Steps For Husband In India

“Torture or ill-treatment in the husband’s house would be sufficient for refusal by the wife-claimant to live with her husband, even though husband may not be guilty personally. Where a wife cannot reasonably hope to live with dignity with her husband she may refuse to live with him.”

The Court also clarified that an offer by the husband to keep the wife with him must be genuine and not merely a legal defence to avoid maintenance liability.

It stated:

“The offer must be bona fide and the same should not have been made with object to escaping the obligation to pay maintenance.”

At the same time, the judgment indirectly highlights how matrimonial litigation today increasingly turns on subjective allegations and surrounding family atmosphere, even where no direct misconduct by the husband is conclusively proved. The Court observed that the burden initially lies on the husband to show that the wife refused to stay with him, after which the wife must justify living separately.

The High Court ultimately found that the husband had made no financial provision for the wife and there was nothing on record to show she had independent income. The Court therefore held that the Family Court’s order was “just and reasonable” and dismissed the revision petition.

Explanatory Table Of Laws & Sections Referred In The Case

Case Details

Case Title: M J vs L M J

Court: Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench

Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke

Case Number: Criminal Revision Application №183 of 2024

Date of Judgment: 10 April 2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6553

Applicant Counsel: Shri V.N. Mate

Non-Applicant Counsel: Shri B.V. Gupta

Relief Sought: Challenge to Family Court order granting maintenance to wife

Final Outcome: Revision Application Dismissed; Maintenance Upheld

Key Takeaways

The Court clearly said a husband can still face maintenance liability even if he is “not personally guilty.”

Alleged ill-treatment by family members or overall matrimonial atmosphere can now become enough ground for separate residence and maintenance.

“Neglect” and “refusal” do not require direct proof anymore — Courts can infer them from conduct and circumstances.

Filing of divorce by wife and living separately did not affect her maintenance claim in this case.

The judgment reflects how Section 125 CrPC is being interpreted more as a social welfare provision, where the husband continues carrying financial responsibility despite disputed facts and absence of criminal conviction.

Click Here to Download Judgment — M J vs L M J 2026_BHC-NAG_6553

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: ShoneeKapoor.com

Contact No.: +91–8010850498

Can Elderly Parents Be Forced To Sacrifice Their Peaceful Life Because Of Matrimonial Disputes?

The Delhi High Court recognised that senior citizens cannot be compelled to suffer harassment or lose peaceful enjoyment of their self-acquired property because of disputes between their son and daughter-in-law.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, in a judgment by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, held that a daughter-in-law cannot claim permanent accommodation in her in-laws’ self-acquired property under the Domestic Violence Act or the Senior Citizens Act.

The Court clarified that the law only protects the right to a “shared household” or reasonable alternate accommodation, and not a permanent right over the property.

The case involved a 76-year-old father-in-law and 73-year-old mother-in-law who alleged physical and mental harassment by their son and daughter-in-law. The elderly couple stated that they were unable to peacefully live in their own house and had no stable source of income except a government pension.

Read Also: NRI Husband Legal Guide: How To Serve Divorce Notice To Wife Living In India?

After examining the complaints, the District Magistrate passed an eviction order against the son and daughter-in-law and also directed police protection for the senior citizens.

The daughter-in-law later challenged the eviction order before the Divisional Commissioner. She argued that she had two children, including one special child, no independent source of income, and therefore could not be left without shelter.

The Divisional Commissioner, while balancing the rights of both sides, observed that senior citizens have a right to live peacefully with dignity, while the daughter-in-law also has a right to shelter.

Read Also: Why India Needs Gender-Neutral Domestic Violence Laws? The Legal Gap Nobody Wants To Discuss

Considering that one of the children was a special child, the Divisional Commissioner modified the eviction order and directed the in-laws to provide permanent alternate accommodation of similar size nearby.

Aggrieved by this direction of “permanent accommodation”, the elderly parents approached the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

The High Court found that the relationship between the parties had become completely bitter and living together was no longer possible. The Court observed that while the daughter-in-law has protection under the Domestic Violence Act, senior citizens also have a legal right to peacefully enjoy their own property without harassment.

Read Also: How To Remove Name From 498A FIR: An Innocent Husband’s Legal Guide

The Court said that both the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act are special laws meant to protect vulnerable groups, and therefore, rights under one law cannot completely destroy the rights available under the other.

It further observed that the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is only a protective right and does not create ownership or permanent residence rights in favour of the daughter-in-law over the in-laws’ property.

Read Also: Real Court Judgments Where Men Were Falsely Accused In India

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav specifically held:

“There are no provisions under the DV Act or the Senior Citizens Act for the grant of permanent accommodation.”

The Court further clarified:

“What is recognised therein, is the right of shared-household.”

The High Court also observed that although the in-laws had earlier agreed before the appellate authority to provide alternate accommodation, such an undertaking could not be stretched into a permanent or lifelong obligation when the law itself does not recognise such a right.

Finally, the High Court directed the elderly couple to pay Rs.30,000 per month to the daughter-in-law towards alternate accommodation and maintenance, after which she and her children must vacate the property within 45 days.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Parmal & Anr. v. The State & Ors.

Court: Delhi High Court

Case Number: W.P.(C) 15440/2024

Date Of Decision: 12 May 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4450

Petitioners: Parmal & Another

Respondents: The State & Others

Counsels:

For Petitioner: Mr. Naginder Benipal, Mr. Ankit Siwach, Mr. Udit Vaghela, Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Mr. Saarthak Sethi, Mr. Arjun Baliyan, and Mr. Satyapal

For Respondent: Ms. Avni Singh (Panel Counsel, GNCTD) with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Mr. Badar Mahmood (SPC for Union of India), Mr. Ammar Ahmad, Mr. Vina Rathi, DHCLSC, and Ms. Hetu

Key Takeaways

Marriage does not give anyone automatic lifetime rights over parents’ self-acquired property.

Elderly parents cannot be forced to sacrifice their peaceful life and dignity inside their own house because of matrimonial disputes of their children.

The legal responsibility to maintain a wife and provide accommodation primarily lies on the husband, not on aged in-laws.

Residence rights are meant for protection from destitution, not for permanent control or occupation of someone else’s property.

Laws protecting women and laws protecting senior citizens must work together in balance, without destroying the rights of either side.

Click Here to Download Judgment – Parmal & Anr. v. The State & Ors

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!