In the matter at hand, the Family Court ordered for payment of Rs. 3,000/- maintenance. The High Court noted that without producing any proof of the infidelity of his wife, the husband simply character assassinated his wife.
Orissa High Court: A Single-Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision.
The Court observed that if a husband doubts his wife’s character without any proof, it gives her valid grounds to live separately.
In this case, the wife moved to her parents’ home soon after marriage and filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Family Court allowed her request and ordered maintenance. The husband argued that the wife refused to live with him without reason and claimed the maintenance amount was excessive since his income was not proven.
The Court noted that the husband accused the wife of having questionable character and even suggested during cross-examination that she had an extra-marital relationship. It ruled that such baseless accusations were sufficient reason for the wife to live apart and justified the maintenance order.
The Bench stated that it is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her.
The Court noted that if a husband doubts his wife’s character without any evidence, it gives her valid grounds to live separately. In this case, the husband accused his wife of infidelity without providing any proof, amounting to character assassination, which justified the wife’s refusal to live with him.
Regarding the maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court, the Court emphasized that a wife is entitled to maintenance aligned with her husband’s standard of living. It observed that the husband, earning ₹9,000 per month as a skilled laborer, could reasonably contribute ₹3,000 towards his wife’s maintenance, especially since she was unable to support herself. The Court concluded that the Family Court’s decision to grant ₹3,000 as monthly maintenance was fair and legally sound.
