Click here to read\/download the judgement<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Niyati Dhiman The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that undue sympathy towards a husband in maintenance cases serves neither justice nor the interests of the deserted wife and children. A single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia increased the interim maintenance awarded by a Gwalior Family Court, raising the amount for the wife from \u20b92,000 to \u20b910,000 per month and for the child from \u20b91,000 to \u20b95,000 per month. The revision petition, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, highlighted the inadequacy of the original maintenance amounts, given the respondent\u2019s gross salary of \u20b968,228 and take-home pay of \u20b953,950 after statutory deductions. The Court dismissed the husband’s claim that a voluntary loan deduction reduced his financial capacity, noting that such loans, including one allegedly taken for marriage expenses, cannot be prioritized over the rights of the wife and child. In its ruling, the Court emphasized that interim maintenance should ensure the wife and child can maintain a lifestyle comparable to what they would have enjoyed in the matrimonial and parental home. It concluded that the Family Court\u2019s initial award was \u201cshockingly low\u201d and rectified the imbalance to better align with the respondent\u2019s income and responsibilities. This decision underscores the judiciary\u2019s commitment to ensuring fair treatment and adequate financial support for deserted spouses and children, setting a significant precedent in family law cases. Case Title: Smt. Rekha Ahirwar and Ors vs Nirmal Chandra Citation: 2024:MPHC-GWL:21511 Click here to read\/download the judgement<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":15044,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-updates"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15955","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15955"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15955\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15956,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15955\/revisions\/15956"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15044"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}