Shirking Liability But Enjoying Life With Expensive Bikes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Maintenance Order Against Husband

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while directing a husband to pay maintenance to his wife and minor children, has observed that he cannot shirk his liability and enjoy an expensive life at their expense.

The Court was considering Revision Petitions filed by both husband and wife against an order of the Family Court whereby maintenance was granted to the wife and minor children.

The Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed, ".....Dispute arose after birth of respondent no.3 with challenges and this is the mother/ respondent no.1 who is taking the challenges of all odds but the father who should have to take more challenges or atleast should have support the respondent no.1/wife is shirking the liability for one or another reasons. He is enjoying the personal life with expensive bikes. Here is not a case when a wife is claiming maintenance for her luxuries but claiming the maintenance due to the circumstances arose due to equal participation of revision petitioner/ husband and it is the bounden duty of the revision petitioner/husband to bear that duty with all sincerity and use all the resources but the arguments advanced by the revision petition/husband does not reflect his sincerity."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Arpit Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Saloni Ojha.

Facts of the Case

In the Application for maintenance, ₹2 Lacs per month for residence, medical treatment, transportation etc. were demanded alleging harassment, neglect for maintenance, inability to maintain themselves and sufficient means of the husband. She, along with children, was sent to the maternal home, and no arrangement for maintenance, including her treatment, whereas the husband is running a transport business at Ahmedabad and owns a luxurious home.

Counsel for the Petitioner- Wife argued that the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) has not been followed and the status of parties has not been taken into consideration. It was averred that the reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children have not been discussed, educational qualification of the wife has not been considered. It was further averred that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses, reasonable expenses for own expenses, expenses for ailing, old-aged parents, have not been considered.

Reasoning By Court

The Court held that the Revision Petition of the Husband seeking setting aside of the order of the Family Court has no weight and dismissed the same with ₹10,000/- cost.

It, however, also refused to enhance the maintenance amount as decided by the Family Court at the instance of the Wife.

Cause Title: Lovedeep Singh Bhatia vs. Simran Kaur and Others (2025:MPHC-IND:27741)

Click here to read/ download Order