#BNSS Section 144

The Madhya Pradesh High Court vacated an interim maintenance order because both parties failed to disclose income and assets, violating the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha. This ruling reinforces that financial transparency is non-negotiable in maintenance proceedings, affecting spouses seeking interim relief under BNSS and compelling family courts to enforce full disclosure before awarding any amount.

The Supreme Court ruled that a husband’s voluntary repayment of loans used to acquire assets cannot be counted as a reduction in his disposable income when calculating spousal maintenance under BNSS Section 144. This reinforces that maintenance must reflect true earning capacity and uphold the wife’s dignity, not shield assets through financial engineering.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a wife’s separation from her husband, even if unilaterally initiated and without proven cruelty or misconduct, does not extinguish her statutory right to interim maintenance under BNSS Section 144. This reinforces that economic vulnerability and lack of independent income, not marital fault, are the decisive factors in granting maintenance - a critical safeguard for financially dependent spouses in pending proceedings.

MP High Court rules that maintenance under Section 144 BNSS cannot be mechanically capped at 25% of gross salary if the husband's disposable income-after accounting for liabilities-is lower. The court directed a recalculation based on actual take-home pay, setting a precedent for income-adjusted spousal support awards.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a reply to an interim maintenance application under BNSS Section 144 cannot substitute as a reply to the main application, ensuring fair opportunity to contest claims. The judgment reinforces that procedural fairness requires distinct filings, impacting maintenance proceedings under family law.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that while precise income proof is ideal under BNSS Section 144, courts may consider holistic circumstances-including education, earning capacity, and familial obligations-to avoid arbitrary maintenance awards. The judgment underscores that assumptions alone cannot substitute for documentary evidence, ensuring fairness in family law proceedings.