Wife Can't Claim Maintenance From Husband She Alleges Is Of Unsound Mind, Unless Shown He Is Capable Of Earning: MP High Court

Upholding a Family Court order rejecting a wife's plea for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that a wife cannot ordinarily claim maintenance from a husband whom she herself alleges is of unsound mind, unless it is established that his mental illness does not render him functionally incapable of earning an income. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 303]The division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed:"It is pertinent to mention here that by way of amendment, the appellant introduced a new ground in her pleadings, asserting the unsoundness of mind of the respondent. Generally, a wife cannot claim maintenance from a husband of unsound mind, unless it is established that his mental illness does not cause any functional incapacity to earn an income. Thus, the appellant's own pleadings have placed her claim in jeopardy". An appeal was filed challenging the order of the Family Court of Morena, wherein the application of the wife was dismissed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which governs maintenance pendente lite. Per the facts, the couple got married in 2008, and the dispute between them started in 2009 with the filing of a divorce petition by the husband, which was later withdrawn. Later, a joint petition was filed by both parties seeking divorce, but that too was dismissed for non complaince of agreed terms. The same was challenged before the High Court, but no favourable order was passed. Thereafter, the husband again filed a petition in 2014, which he withdrew. He filed a third petition in 2016 in which the impugned order was passed. While the husband's third petition was pending, the wife filed an application under Section 24 HMA contending that she was harassed for dowry and was ousted from the matrimonial house with no arrangement for maintenance. The wife claimed that the husband earned ₹50,000 from a medical store and therefore the wife should be granted ₹20,000 as monthly maintenance. The husband challenged the wife's application under Section 24 HMA, contending that after the death of his first wife, he married the appellant, but from the inception of the relationship, she started threatening him that she would implicate him in a dowry harassment case. The husband claimed to have two daughters from the first marriage, who received no love or affection from the appellant. The husband claimed that the wife deserted him and took away valuables. Further, it was argued that he does not operate a medical shop while bearing the expenses of his two daughters. He claimed that the wife was working as an Advocate earning ₹30,000 per month. The Trial Court dismissed the application for interim maintenance, which was challenged by the wife before the High Court. The counsel for the appellant (wife) argued that no documents were provided to show that the wife earned a living. It was claimed that she was not a legal practitioner but was earning some amount and was working as a Commissioner appointed fr recording evidence, but that practice has not been stopped. The counsel for the respondent (husband) opposed the appeal, asserting that the wife was never willing to establish a matrimonial relationship. The husband claimed that he was being harassed since the date of the marriage and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.The court noted that the wife also sought additional maintenance of ₹15 lakhs in light of medical documents showing her cancer treatment, for which she is taking treatment in a private hospital. The court noted that the Ayushman Card Number shows that she is entitled to medical benefits under the Scheme and therefore, her maintenance request cannot be accepted. The court noted that the couple has faced troubles since the inception of the marriage with a "series of litigations instituted against each other". The court further noted that the wife, in her admission, conceded that their marriage was not consummated. The court noted that the wife was not successful in any proceedings against the husband, either seeking maintenance or accusing him of domestic violence. The court also noted that the wife has amended her pleadings asserting that her husband was of unsound mind. The court took serious note of this amendment, noting that a wife, ordinarily, cannot claim maintenance from a husband of unsound mind unless it is established that his mental illness does not cause any financial incapacity to earn an income. Therefore, the bench held that the wife's own pleadings weakened her maintenance case. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal. Case Title: BG v VG, FA-1135-2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 303For Appellant: Advocate Manish Sharma For Respondent: Advocate Surendra Singh PariharClick here to read/download the Order

Wife Can't Claim Maintenance From Husband She Alleges Is Of Unsound Mind, Unless Shown He Is Capable Of Earning: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Wife Can't Claim Maintenance From Husband She Alleges Is Of Unsound Mind, Unless Shown He Is Capable Of Earning: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers