Topic
Bombay High Court reaffirms that a husband’s willful non-participation in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC cannot defeat the wife’s entitlement to support. The ruling underscores that ex parte orders remain valid when evidence substantiates the wife’s claim, reinforcing the provision’s social welfare objective.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a husband’s duty to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be nullified by later divorce proceedings that attribute fault to the wife. The obligation is statutory, ongoing, and independent of subsequent marital conduct, with arrears enforceable within 60 days - protecting economically vulnerable wives even after divorce.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that 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 relief for dependents from the earliest possible date, preventing prolonged hardship during litigation.