#Family Court Orders

The Kerala High Court ruled that past maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be arbitrarily capped when the husband earns abroad and the child incurs substantial educational expenses. The judgment establishes that courts must account for actual foreign earnings and child-specific costs, not just local norms, setting a new benchmark for maintenance calculations in transnational family disputes.

Orissa High Court rules that a divorced wife’s eligibility for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be dismissed solely based on educational qualifications or provisional job listings. Actual employment and income must be proven to deny relief, reinforcing that maintenance rights hinge on financial need, not mere employability.

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.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be calculated from the date of the application, not the order, aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha. This ensures financial support for dependents during litigation, preventing undue hardship and upholding natural justice principles.

Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may not be reduced solely on grounds of adultery or voluntary desertion without considering financial capacity and needs.

Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC requires proof of cruelty or unjustified desertion, not mere allegations of extramarital affairs.