Husband’s Responsibility Does Not Extend to Married, Able-Bodied Brother

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a family court order directing a man to pay Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, observing that his responsibility to support dependent family members does not extend to his married, able-bodied brother who can maintain himself and his wife.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, while dismissing the husband’s challenge to the maintenance order, noted that although he may be responsible for supporting his widowed mother and unmarried sisters, he cannot be expected to bear the expenses of his adult married brother.

The husband argued that following his father’s death, he had secured a compassionate appointment and was morally and legally responsible for maintaining the family’s dependents. He claimed that the family court had not adequately considered these obligations while determining the maintenance amount.

However, the High Court observed that the family court had already considered his financial responsibilities. Despite paying Rs 20,000 monthly to his wife, he would retain sufficient income to support his genuinely dependent family members.

Criminal Acquittal Does Not Erase Cruelty Allegations

The couple married in May 2016. The wife alleged that her husband and his family had subjected her to cruelty after marriage. Although they were acquitted in a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the wife’s appeal against the acquittal remained pending.

The High Court clarified that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically erase the wife’s allegations of cruelty or eliminate the grounds for her separate residence. Referring to an earlier Division Bench judgment, it observed that the complaint could still be relevant when determining whether the wife had sufficient reason to live separately.

The court noted that the husband earned a gross monthly salary of Rs 1.82 lakh, with a take-home salary of approximately Rs 1 lakh. It found the maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 reasonable in light of his income.

The court also took note of the husband depositing 50 per cent of the maintenance arrears with the High Court registry instead of the family court, where the money was required to be deposited for the wife to withdraw it. The court viewed this conduct as indicative of mala fide intent to harass her.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the family court’s maintenance order.