Matrimonial and Maintenance Cases

The Section 20 the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu father to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property, the High Court of Kerala observed in Gireesh Kumar. N v. Rajani K.V. & Anr.

A court cannot legally compel an indigent person (a person lacking means) to pay maintenance, as the legal obligation to pay is predicated upon the ability to pay. This was the core observation of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Jubairiya vs. Saidalavi N [2025: KER: 68937].

Just because a wife is earning does not mean that she can be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to after her marriage, says the Bombay High Court, in KPS v PSS [2025:BHC-AS:25107].

The Supreme Court (SC), in Aditi Alias Mithi v Jitesh Sharma [2023 INSC 981 ] directs the courts in India to follow the detailed guidelines issued by it in Rajnesh v Neha &  Another [(2021) 2 SCC 32], including filing of the uniform format of Affidavit for Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, in maintenance proceedings.

The Kerala High Court in xxx v yyy 2nd February 2023 says a wife is eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC even if there is an agreement by which a wife waives her right of maintenance. This is because such an agreement is against public policy. Therefore, such an agreement is ab initio void and not enforceable.

The Kerala High Court says, in Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case [2025:KER:5702], that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.