‘Marriage doesn’t mean growth of one partner, exclusion of other, especially wife’: MP High Court asks man to pay maintenance to medical practitioner wife

MP High Court's Justice Gajendra Singh was hearing a maintenance case filed by a woman when he underscored the importance of equality in marriage by saying it does not mean development of only one partner and restrictions for the other, especially wife.

'Entering into marital tie up does not mean end of personality of the wife': Madhya Pradesh HC observed while deciding a maintenance case.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that equality in marriage does not mean the “development of only one partner and restriction for the other, particularly the wife” while hearing a woman’s plea seeking maintenance from her estranged husband.

Justice Gajendra Singh heard the plea of the wife, who alleged cruelty by the estranged husband and in-laws for not meeting their dowry demands from the time she got married.

“Entering into marital tie up does not mean end of personality of the wife,” the court pointed out in its order.

Story continues below this ad

When the husband claimed that the wife was living separately and he had to care for his elderly parents, the court said, “If the husband has a duty towards his parents, then he has also the duty to complete the course that would enhance the capability of the wife and to empower her. Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other especially wife.”

It also came on record that the wife registered as a homeopathic practitioner in 2017 and married in 2018. She briefly worked during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 and was paid a monthly stipend of Rs 25,000.

Also Read | ‘Alimony can’t be granted to spouse who’s financially self-sufficient’: Delhi HC

The court observed that she has been pursuing a post-graduate degree in homeopathy (MD Homeopathy) since 2023.

The woman, however, alleged that she was harassed and ousted from her matrimonial home and claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs 25,000 in the family court, which rejected her plea in 2018.

Story continues below this ad

She was challenging the family court’s decision by filing a revision petition in the high court.

The husband, on the other hand, claimed the woman was living separately without any justification. He further claimed that she was a qualified doctor earning a monthly sum of Rs 45,000.

He sought his estranged wife’s plea to be dismissed, saying he had to take care of his elderly parents, suffering from multiple ailments.

The high court order noted that the husband had “exhausted his energy to demonstrate that the revision petitioner was earning as homeopathic medical practitioner” but his attempts had “failed” as the woman’s services were “temporary to address the Covid-19 situation” and ended in 2022.

Story continues below this ad

“No doubt, his approach is appreciable but he cannot totally ignore the wife. His allegation that wife was insisting for living separately from the in-laws does not get affirmation from evidence.,” it added.

The order continued, “The findings of the trial court in rejecting the maintenance cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. Presently, the revision petitioner is pursuing her MD (Homeopathic) and she requires support.”

The court, as a result, awarded the wife Rs 15,000 towards monthly maintenance, considering that the husband’s monthly salary of Rs 74,000.

Justice Singh further noted that if the woman finds a job after completing her course, and given that there is no reconciliation between the parties, she could file a plea for the modification of the other order.