- By Gunpreet
High Court of Madhya Pradesh ( Jabalpur ): On 17th Feb 2025, laid a landmark judgement in the matter of Amit Kumar Khodake v. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali.
Case Background
The case stemmed from the Family Court, Chhindwara where the applicant, Amit Kumar Khodake , a ward boy with the monthly salary of Rs. 8,000 per month challenged the maintenance order of Rs. 4000 per month awarded to his wife to which he appealed the Family Court decision to Madhya Pradesh High Court
Claims by the applicants:
The applicant argued that his father had disowned him and evicted from his property. He also claimed that his wife was financially independent and thus not entitle to interim maintenance. Furthermore, applicant accused respondent of having an emotional love affair with another man which he claim it constitute to adultery.
Response by Respondent :
Wife denied his allegations, asserting that she had suffered domestic violence and cruelty by her husband which led to her decision to live separately. She also argued that her husband misrepresented her financial independency.
Key observation by the court
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, presiding over the case, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and Upheld the Family Court’s decision.
Key Observation:
- Lack of proportionality between income and maintenance:
The court rejected the salary slips submitted by the applicant which claimed he earned only Rs. 8,000 per month citing that documents lacks authoritative seal which raised doubts about it’s authencity.
2. Failure to prove Adultery : The court clarified that mere having an emotional affection with other men does not constitute adultery
- Failure to prove wife’s financial independence
The applicant argued his wife is financially independent as she is ruining a beauty parlour and doesn’t in need of any sort of interim maintenance.
- Father disowning his son Disownment by Father: The applicant presented a newspaper notice from his father claiming to have disowned him and removed him from the family property. The court rejected his claim, observing that the applicant continued to reside at his father’s address.
- Upheld Family Court Decision:The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to award Rs. 4,000 interim maintenance The High Court concurred with the Family Court’s assessment, affirming that the maintenance amount was easonable.
Final Verdict
The High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, citing the wife’s right to maintenance. The court criticized the applicant’s attempt to mislead the proceedings with unfounded claims and referenced the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which stated that an able-bodied man cannot avoid his maintenance obligations merely due to low income.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of maintaining fairness in maintenance cases and rejecting the applicant’s appeal based on baseless allegations.High Court of Madhya Pradesh ( Jabalpur ): On 17th Feb 2025, High Court of Madhya Pradesh laid a landmark judgement on the case of Amit Kumar Khodake v. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali.
Case Background
The case Amit Kumar Khodake v. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed a concern over maintenance under section 24 of HMA. The case stemmed from the Family Court, Chhindwara where the applicant, Amit Kumar Khodake , a ward boy with the monthly salary of Rs. 8,000 per month challenged the maintenance order of Rs. 4000 per month awarded to his wife to which he appealed the Family Court decision to High Court in Criminal Revision No. 4006 of 2024.
Claims by the applicants:
The applicant argued that his father had disowned him and evicted from his property. He also claimed that his wife was financially independent and thus not entitle to interim maintenance. Furthermore, applicant accused respondent of having an emotional love affair with another man which he claim it constitute to adultery.
Response by Respondent :
Wife denied his allegations, asserting that she had suffered domestic violence and cruelty by her husband which led to her decision to live separately. She also argued that her husband misrepresented her financial independency.
Key observation by the court
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, presiding over the case, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and Upheld the Family Court’s decision.
Key Observation:
- Lack of proportionality between income and maintenance:
The court rejected the salary slips submitted by the applicant which claimed he earned only Rs. 8,000 per month citing that documents lacks authoritative seal which raised doubts about it’s authencity.
2. Failure to prove Adultery : The court clarified that mere having an emotional affection with other men does not constitute adultery
- Failure to prove wife’s financial independence
The applicant argued his wife is financially independent as she is ruining a beauty parlour and doesn’t in need of any sort of interim maintenance.
- Father disowning his son Disownment by Father: The applicant presented a newspaper notice from his father claiming to have disowned him and removed him from the family property. The court rejected his claim, observing that the applicant continued to reside at his father’s address.
- Upheld Family Court Decision:The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to award Rs. 4,000 interim maintenance The High Court concurred with the Family Court’s assessment, affirming that the maintenance amount was easonable.
Final Verdict
The High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, citing the wife’s right to maintenance. The court criticized the applicant’s attempt to mislead the proceedings with unfounded claims and referenced the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which stated that an able-bodied man cannot avoid his maintenance obligations merely due to low income.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of maintaining fairness in maintenance cases and rejecting the applicant’s appeal based on baseless allegations.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Khodake v. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali.
- Gunpreet Singh is a 4th year B.A LL.B student at City Law College , Lucknow
