A man who is entitled to second marriage under personal law is also bound to maintain his first wife, the Calcutta High Court observed on Monday while quashing a session court order reducing the maintenance for the first wife of the husband from ₹6000 to ₹4000.
Single-judge Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the woman (petitioner) was married to the man on October 12, 2003, and she was also allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home on October 12, 2012, due to the unfulfillment of the dowry demanded by her husband and in-laws.
Her husband allegedly tied the knot with another lady and then the petitioner (first wife) was driven out for the demand of more dowry from her, added the Court.
The bench further observed in its order, “A man who can marry for the second time (permitted under personal law), is duty bound to maintain his first wife of 9 years. A woman who has diligently, sincerely, and lovingly put in so many years her life, in a relationship with the husband, deserves to be looked after and cared for by him, as long as she needs or requires the same.“
The wife had challenged the order which was passed by a sessions judge on February 27, 2019. The order had quashed a family court’s verdict given on October 6, 2016.
The family court had directed the husband of the lady to pay her ₹6000 per month as maintenance. However, the maintenance amount was reduced to ₹4,000 by the sessions judge.
Due to this sessions court order, the wife moved the High Court.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/a-man-entitled-to-marry-for-the-second-time-under-personal-law-is-duty-bound-to-maintain-his-first-wife-calcutta-high-court
You May Also Like:
‘Husband Allegedly In Illegal Custody Of Wife’: Madras High Court Appoints Advocate-Commissioner To Enquire Into Allegations 
Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Can Be Claimed By Wife Even If She Receives Alimony But Not Able To Maintain Self or Children 
Domestic Violence needs to be shown or proved to seek relief under DV Act: Bombay High Court 
The Kerala High Court has ruled that family courts must establish a timeframe for time-bound adjudication, rather than simply stating that the case will be disposed of at the earliest opportunity