Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Against Denying Maintenance to Wife Based on Her Modern Lifestyle

In the present case, the Court said the wife was free to live her life as per own wishes whether orthodox or modern.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that leading a modern lifestyle as a wife is not morally wrong and cannot be used as a reason to deny her maintenance. Justice GS Ahluwalia emphasized that the court cannot deem a wife to be at fault simply because her modern lifestyle is considered “immoral” by her husband.

“Leading a modern life without committing an offence cannot be criticized at all. Unless and until it is held that wife is residing separately without any reasonable reason, she cannot be denied maintenance,” the Court observed.

Consequently, the Court dismissed a petition submitted by a man seeking to annul the directive requiring him to provide his wife with a monthly maintenance payment of ₹5,000.

The Court further remarked that aside from asserting his objection to his wife’s lifestyle, describing it as “modern” and unacceptable to him, no other evidence had been presented to demonstrate that she was living apart without valid justification.
“If there are differences between the applicant (husband) and his wife on this issue, then this Court can only say that so long as respondent No.1 is not indulged in criminal activity, she is free to live her life as per own wishes whether orthodox or modern,” the Court said.
In the current case, a 36-year-old husband contested a court order issued in Satna district, which mandated him to provide maintenance to his 26-year-old wife. Additionally, the Satna court directed him to pay maintenance of ₹3,000 for his young son.

The husband’s representative argued against the order, highlighting the stark contrast between the husband’s traditional background and the wife’s modern lifestyle, citing her Facebook activity as evidence. Although the husband had no qualms about supporting his son, he objected to the maintenance awarded to his wife due to her lifestyle choices.

However, the Court questioned the validity of this argument, pondering whether it could justify disregarding legal obligations based on subjective moral standards. The Court also questioned whether the wife’s modern lifestyle could be deemed immoral.

In response, the husband’s counsel asserted that law and morality are intertwined, advocating for moral considerations to take precedence.

Disagreeing with this viewpoint, the Court pointed out that the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court, ₹5,000, was not excessive.

“In the light of price index, cost of living as well as cost of goods required for daily needs, this Court is of considered opinion that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is on higher side,” Justice Ahluwalia reasoned.Top of Form

As a result, the Court rejected the husband’s petition while specifying that its decision would not obstruct his wife and child from filing a separate request for an increase in the maintenance amount.