Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh, on Wednesday (October 15), granted maintenance to a woman living separately from her husband and pursuing her MD in Homoeopathy, observing that a husband also has a duty to help complete the course that would enhance his wife's capabilities and empower her. The Court set aside the Family Court’s order that had rejected her plea and directed the husband, employed in a public sector undertaking, to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance from the date of application, excluding the period when she received a temporary stipend during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The matter arose from an application filed by a woman seeking monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The applicant was married to the respondent on February 20, 2018, according to Hindu rituals in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. She alleged that from the beginning of the marriage, she was subjected to demands for dowry and cruelty upon failure to meet those demands, leading to her being ousted from the matrimonial home on June 24, 2018. She sought ₹25,000 per month as maintenance, citing her inability to maintain herself and the respondent’s sufficient means.

Also Read: CBI Inquiry Permissible Only in Exceptional Circumstances; Not Justified in Recruitment Disputes: Supreme Court

The husband opposed the claim, denying any dowry demand or cruelty. He contended that the applicant was living separately without sufficient cause and was a qualified doctor earning approximately ₹45,000 per month from private practice in various hospitals. He also stated that his aged parents were dependent on him and suffered from health ailments.

During proceedings before the Family Court, the applicant produced her educational and registration documents as a Homeopathic practitioner and testified that she was unemployed and financially dependent on her father. The respondent submitted evidence, including income details and documents, asserting that the applicant had worked as a temporary “Ayush Chikitsak” during the Covid-19 pandemic, receiving a stipend of ₹25,000 per month. The evidence also showed that the respondent was employed as a Mechanical Technician with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, earning a regular salary of ₹74,000 per month. Both sides relied on oral and documentary evidence to support their respective claims concerning financial capacity and justification for living separately.

Justice Gajendra Singh observed that the petitioner had completed her Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine on September 19, 2017, and had been registered as a practitioner on September 27, 2017. The Court noted that she had temporarily served as an Ayush Chikitsak during the COVID-19 pandemic for limited periods and received a stipend subject to tax deduction. “Her so-called service was temporary to address the COVID-19 situation and came to an end on 01.04.2022,” the Court recorded.

The Court further observed that the petitioner’s marriage was registered on March 3, 2018, and that she had been compelled to stay at her parental home since June 25, 2018, due to alleged ill-treatment and harassment over dowry demands. It was also noted that her parents had attempted reconciliation by visiting Ahmedabad on two occasions, but the respondent later filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights only after receiving notice of the maintenance proceedings. “The wife who is not desirous to live with the husband will not come to the residence of husband in the hope of reconciliation of dispute,” the Court stated, holding that there was no evidence of the husband’s effort to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home.

Justice Singh held that the trial court’s findings that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause were contrary to evidence and misapplied Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. “Entering into marital tie up does not mean end of personality of the wife,” the Court observed, further stating that while the husband’s concern for his ailing parents was appreciable, “he cannot totally ignore the wife.” The Court added, “Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other especially wife.”

Also Read: MP High Court Denies Bail to Advocate Accused of Repeated Sexual Assault and Coercion of Minor Girl into Trafficking, Citing Need for Detailed Investigation

The Court stated, “The respondent/husband is serving in a public sector undertaking of ONGC Ltd. and getting handsome salary of Rs. 74,000/- per month as per his statement. Thus, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month is quantified as maintenance payable to the revision petitioner/wife.”

The Court directed that the maintenance would be payable from the date of the original application, except for the one-year period when the petitioner had received a stipend during her temporary service. It clarified that any interim maintenance already paid would be adjusted against the final amount. Justice Singh also allowed the petitioner the right to seek modification of the order under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. (presently Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in case of a change in circumstances, including her employment or reconciliation with the respondent. “After completing the course if the revision petitioner/wife gets job or there is a change in the circumstances and there is no reconciliation between the parties, the revision petitioner may file for modification of the order as permissible,”

With these directions, the criminal revision was allowed partly.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pragya Swami, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Nipun Choudhary, Advocate

Case Title: V v SS
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-IND:30316
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh