Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg, the Supreme Court of India examined whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) despite adverse findings by lower courts.

The appellants (wife and son) challenged the denial of maintenance to the wife by the Family Court and the High Court. The Court observed that the husband not only neglected his duty but also made baseless allegations regarding the wife’s character, which justified her living separately.

Moreover, the Court emphasised that maintenance provisions serve a social justice function. Therefore, once neglect and inability to maintain oneself are established, courts must grant relief.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the erroneous findings of lower courts and granted maintenance to the wife.

“9. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children.”
“10. It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.”
“11. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment.”
“13. The respondent being an able- bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants.”

Decision

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and held that the wife was entitled to maintenance.

Accordingly:

The Court awarded ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
This amount was in addition to ₹6,000 per month already granted to the son.
The maintenance was made payable from the date of filing of the petition.
The Court also directed the husband to clear arrears within 8 weeks.

Thus, the Court corrected the perverse findings of the Family Court and High Court and reinforced the protective intent of maintenance law.

Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS)
Social Justice Jurisprudence in Family Law
Cruelty as Ground for Separate Residence
Burden of Proof in Maintenance Cases
Obligation of Able-Bodied Husband to Maintain Wife

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

How to Defend Excessive Maintenance Claims in Matrimonial Cases

Posted on March 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

Maintenance disputes are among the most contested aspects of matrimonial litigation. Frequently, one spouse may claim maintenance that is significantly higher than the actual financial capacity of the other spouse. In such situations, it becomes essential to understand how the law evaluates maintenance claims and what legal strategies can be used to challenge excessive demands.

Therefore, defending an exaggerated maintenance claim requires a careful examination of financial records, legal principles, and factual circumstances. This article explains the legal framework governing maintenance in India and the practical strategies that can be used to contest excessive claims before the court.

Understanding Maintenance Under Indian Law

Maintenance is intended to provide financial support to a spouse who lacks sufficient means for sustenance. However, the objective of maintenance law is not to punish one spouse or provide an unjust enrichment to the other.

In India, maintenance may be claimed under several legal provisions, including:

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

These provisions aim to ensure that a financially dependent spouse is able to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

However, courts also recognise that maintenance must be proportionate to the paying spouse’s income and financial obligations.

Principles Considered by Courts While Determining Maintenance

Before awarding maintenance, courts usually evaluate several factors. These factors help ensure that the amount awarded is fair and balanced.

Some important considerations include:

Actual income of both spouses
Standard of living during the marriage
Financial liabilities of the respondent
Employment and earning capacity of the claimant
Number of dependents
Educational qualifications and work experience of the spouse claiming maintenance

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha laid down detailed guidelines for determining maintenance, including mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities by both parties.

These guidelines aim to prevent exaggerated or misleading maintenance claims.

Step 1: Demand Full Financial Disclosure

First and foremost, the respondent should insist on complete financial disclosure by the claimant spouse.

This may include:

Income tax returns
Bank statements
Salary slips
Investment records
Details of movable and immovable property

If the claimant is employed or earning independently, these records can significantly weaken an inflated maintenance claim.

Moreover, courts are increasingly strict about accurate disclosure of financial information.

Step 2: Challenge Incorrect Income Allegations

In many cases, the claimant spouse may overstate the respondent’s income. For example, allegations may be made that the respondent earns large amounts through business or undisclosed sources.

However, such allegations must be supported by documentary evidence.

Therefore, the respondent should submit:

Income tax returns
Salary certificates
Business financial statements
Loan repayment records

These documents help the court determine the actual earning capacity of the respondent.

Step 3: Highlight Financial Liabilities

Another important strategy is to demonstrate the existing financial responsibilities of the respondent.

Courts consider various liabilities such as:

Housing loans or personal loans
Responsibility for elderly parents
Educational expenses of children
Medical expenses of dependents

When these obligations are properly documented, the court may reduce the maintenance amount to a reasonable level.

Step 4: Show the Claimant’s Earning Capacity

Maintenance is generally awarded when the spouse is unable to maintain herself or himself independently. However, if the claimant is educated, professionally qualified, or capable of earning, courts may reduce or deny excessive maintenance claims.

For instance, if the claimant has:

Professional qualifications
Prior employment history
Independent income sources

the court may conclude that the claimant has the capacity to support themselves partially or fully.

Consequently, exaggerated maintenance demands may be rejected.

Step 5: Point Out Lifestyle Exaggeration

Sometimes, the claimant may attempt to justify a high maintenance demand by claiming an extremely luxurious lifestyle during marriage.

However, the court will examine whether such claims are realistic and supported by evidence.

Therefore, the respondent should present evidence such as:

Actual household expenses
Standard living conditions during marriage
Financial limitations faced during the relationship

This helps demonstrate that the maintenance claim is inflated beyond reality.

Step 6: Seek Interim Relief Modification

If the court has already granted interim maintenance, the respondent may apply for modification if the amount is unreasonable.

Modification may be sought when:

Financial circumstances change
New evidence regarding income emerges
The claimant conceals financial information

Courts may revise interim maintenance orders to ensure fairness.

Step 7: Expose Suppression of Income or Assets

In some cases, the claimant spouse may hide employment or assets while claiming maintenance.

If evidence of such concealment is produced, courts may:

Reduce the maintenance amount
Dismiss the claim
Impose costs

Therefore, conducting proper financial investigation and documentation becomes crucial.

Importance of Documentation in Maintenance Defence

Defending excessive maintenance claims largely depends on documentary evidence. Oral allegations rarely carry much weight unless supported by records.

Important documents include:

Income tax returns
Salary certificates
Bank statements
Loan documents
Property records
Employment history of the claimant spouse

When these records are properly presented, they provide the court with a realistic picture of the financial situation of both parties.

Conclusion

Maintenance laws aim to protect financially dependent spouses. However, they are not meant to enable unreasonable or inflated financial demands. Therefore, defending excessive maintenance claims requires a structured legal approach, accurate financial disclosure, and strategic presentation of evidence.

By demonstrating the true income, financial liabilities, and earning capacity of both spouses, the respondent can ensure that the court determines a fair and reasonable maintenance amount.

Ultimately, courts strive to strike a balance between financial support and fairness, ensuring that maintenance orders reflect genuine need rather than exaggerated claims.

Index of Legal Strategies and Defence is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on March 7 by Suprajaa Rajan

The High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was justified where the court found possible false statements regarding employment in a maintenance petition. The Court observed that such proceedings aim to protect the sanctity of judicial processes.

The Court ruled that the truth of the allegations must emerge during the enquiry. It dismissed the appeal and allowed the perjury proceedings to continue.

The following extracts form the basis of the Court’s reasoning.

“Admittedly, the dispute is between appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, who are husband and wife. Due to the matrimonial discord, appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home on 25.09.2017 and both of them started living separately.”

“A perusal of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. makes it evident that if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195… such Court after such preliminary enquiry is competent to order the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to carry out a thorough enquiry by affording opportunity to both the sides for establishing the truthfulness in the allegations.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in itself cannot be said to be punitive. Rather the same is expedient in the interest of justice for maintaining the sanctity of the judicial proceedings.”

“After hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the record… this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint and impugned orders suffer from no illegality.”

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the Family Court’s decision to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Court held that such enquiry was necessary to determine the truth of the alleged false statements regarding employment.

However, the Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court during further proceedings.

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Harbhajan Singh on 26 Aug 2022

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Posted on March 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Allahabad High Court held that when a party files an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false affidavit, the Family Court must decide that application before proceeding with the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that failure to do so vitiates the maintenance order if it relies on the disputed affidavit. The High Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to first decide the perjury application within a fixed time frame.

“It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.”

“Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.”

“In view of above the criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.- 502 of 2020 is set aside.”

“Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1/court concerned is directed to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediments.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal revision.

It set aside the maintenance order.
It directed the Family Court to first decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
It ordered that the maintenance case proceed only thereafter.

Amit Bajpai Vs State of UP on 15 Dec 2023

Citation: [2023:AHC:238266]

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com.,LL.B.,LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Posted on February 18 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court ruled that enforcement of maintenance orders must strictly follow the mechanism provided under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 421 CrPC. It permits recovery through attachment and sale of property, and not by issuance of a Look Out Circular.

The Court further observed that continuing an LOC despite a judicial stay order amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Below are the crucial paragraphs that formed the foundation of the Court’s decision:

Para 2
“It is submitted that Section 125(3) provides that in enforcement of the maintenance order Court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for fines as prescribed under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 provides that a warrant for levy of fine by attachment of sale of immovable property.”
“Proviso to Section 421 provides that no such warrant shall be executed by arrest or detention in prison of the offender. The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing the order of maintenance.”
“The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing an order that is passed under Section 125 of CrPC.”
“Maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of CrPC is a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If party defaults the remedy is to seek execution of the order i.e., attachment of property, warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment.”
“Look out circulars are meant to prevent the accused/offenders from evading criminal process. The LOC cannot be issued for recovering the dues of maintenance.”
Para 6
“Further, continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Mohammed Azeem Vs Saheeba and Ors

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Judgments about Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.,

+91-9606345150

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025

Posted on February 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge Bench of the Patna High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The husband challenged the order in revision. He argued that the wife had deserted him.

The Court held that a plea of desertion cannot defeat a maintenance claim by itself. The husband must first obtain a declaration from a competent matrimonial court. Until then, the wife remains entitled to claim maintenance.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s reasoning:

“7. But unless the petitioner is able to get a declaration in his favour in the Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the opposite party no. 2 fails to justify her desertion, any challenge to the maintenance order is not sustainable.”
“7. It also transpires that the maintenance amount awarded to the opposite party no. 2 is about 25 percent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021).”

VivekKumarSinghVsPallawiKumari_11MAR2025_PatnaHC

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M

Contact : +91-9606345150

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from a single judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment explaining how important it is to follow the mandate u/s 421 Cr.P.C. while executing maintenance orders u/s 125(1) Cr.P.C.

From Paras 10, 11 and 12,

10.A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that for recovery of the amount of maintenance, procedure under Section 421(1) has to be followed by either issuing warrant for levying the amount due by attachment and sale of movable property belonging to the offender or by issuing a warrant to the Collector of the district, for authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter. Section 421(3) provides that where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of Subsection (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law.
11.A conjoint reading of the provisions contained under Section 125(3) read with Section 421 of CrPC would show that by virtue of Section 125(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate has been empowered to recover the amount of arrears of maintenance by following the procedure prescribed for levy of fine under Section 421 of CrPC. Two modes are prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC for recovery of the arrears of maintenance due as if it were a fine levied. The Court can either issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the defaulter or issue a warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC. It is only after the Magistrate has exhausted the two modes prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC and still fails to recover the arrears of maintenance due that he can sentence the person who committed the default to imprisonment as enjoined under Section 125(3) of CrPC for the period prescribed in the above-stated provision and if in the execution of sentence of imprisonment so awarded, the defaulter does not appear to suffer, the sentence so awarded, the Court should at the first instance issue summons/notice for his appearance and if the defaulter seems to be avoiding the summons, the Court in the second instance should issue bailable warrant for his appearance to undergo sentence. The Courts, at first and second instance, shall refrain from issuing non-bailable warrant.
12.It is quite vivid that the provisions contained under Section 125(3) of CrPC itself provide that the Court may sentence such a person for whole or
any part of each month’s allowance after the execution of the warrant, as such, Section 125(3) CrPC speaks only of issue of a warrant for levying the amount in the manner provided for levying fines and does not speak of a warrant of arrest. The issue of a warrant for levy of the amount due by way of attachment and sale is a condition precedent to the sentencing of the defaulter to imprisonment. As such, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC and without issuance of warrant of attachment and sale, no warrant can be issued and no order for imprisonment can be passed under Section 125(3) of CrPC.

From Para 17,

17. Reverting to the facts of the instant case in light of the aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that learned Family Court, finding that the arrears of maintenance is due from the petitioner, straightway issued warrant of arrest without following the procedure laid down in Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC, whereas learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 421 of CrPC for recovering the arrears of the amount of maintenance, and if after following the procedure as envisaged in Section 421 of CrPC by issuance of warrant of attachment of movable and immovable property of the defaulter and sale thereof; still arrears of amount of maintenance remains due, then order of imprisonment can be passed, as such, the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner is contrary to Section 125(3) read with Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of the CrPC. Accordingly, the order dated 09/05/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed in MJC No. 43/2019 is hereby set aside and learned Family Court is directed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra) strictly for recovery of the amount of maintenance.

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

Citations: [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-96]

Other Sources:

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1070468/jagdamba-trivedi-vs-neha-trivedi/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6050d0e69fca195f67640edb

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/jagdamba-trivedi-versus-neha-trivedi

https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=021202701000&title=jagdamba-trivedi-vs-neha-trivedi#:~:text=He%20would%20also%20submit%20that%20if%20the,(Annexure%20A/2)%20deserve%20to%20be%20set%20aside.

Index of Maintenance Orders u/s 144 BNSS is here.

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Case No: OP (Crl.) 802/ 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024

Posted on October 7, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed to enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually.

From Para 21,

(21) So far as the question for grant of interim maintenance to respondent-wife is concerned, an affidavit along with salary slip filed by appellant-husband clearly shows that he is a Software Engineer working in a private Firm, namely, Dassault System Software Solution Private Limited in Pune and getting gross salary of approximately Rs.1,18,875/-per month including other liability. It is averred that respondent- wife is a B. Com, MBA in Retail Business Management and Marketing from MIT College, Pune. From the record, it is found that the learned Family has already awarded maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.25,000/- per month by allowing the application under Section 125 of CrPC to maintain herself and her minor son Aryaman. The same amount of Rs.25,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is found to be just and proper and, therefore, there is no need to pass separate order for the same.
However, we may add here that the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month shall fetch enhancement every calendar year @ 5% to meet the ends of justice, till it attains finality or altered subsequently in future, in some appropriate proceedings at the instance of parties.

Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court directed to set aside the enhancement of Maintenance amount at 10% annually.

From Para 3,

3. In the M.C, the 1st petitioner had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A10 as documentary evidence. On the respondent’s side, oral evidence was adduced by him as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked as documentary evidence. The Family Court has appreciated the above evidence and allowed the M.C granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of the petition. The Family Court has also directed the respondent to pay a lumpsum of Rs.30,000/- at the beginning of every academic year before June 30th subject to enhancement at the rate of 10% yearly to the 2nd petitioner for her education with effect from the date of the petition.

From Para 16,

16. The Family Court has ordered the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the same and also an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- within June 30th of every academic year subject to 10% increase annually. The said direction undoubtedly is an unjustifiable one and will not sustain for the reason that the monthly maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C will take within it’s sweep all genuine expenses of the child viz. expenses for education, food, shelter, medicine etc. and therefore, a court while fixing it shall take into account all possible and reasonable expenditures of a child. Therefore, if a lumpsum amount is fixed by the Family Court as payable, undoubtedly it would take care of all reasonable expenditures of the child. Moreover, the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- annually to the 2nd petitioner, in every academic year in addition to a lumpsum amount ordered as payable towards monthly maintenance allowance, is devoid of any basis.

From Para 17,

17. The Family Court has fixed the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- after duly considering the educational expenses also. Therefore the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as additional sum only to meet the educational expenses is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.

Finally,

In the result, both revisions are allowed in part. The monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the 1st petitioner by the impugned order is modified and reduced to Rs.7,000/- and that to the 2nd petitioner is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The direction to pay Rs.30,000/- before 30th June of every academic year subject to 10% enhancement annually is set aside.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: BNSS Sec 144 – Order for maintenance of wives children and parents

Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

How to Defend Excessive Maintenance Claims in Matrimonial Cases

Understanding Maintenance Under Indian Law

Principles Considered by Courts While Determining Maintenance

Step 1: Demand Full Financial Disclosure

Step 2: Challenge Incorrect Income Allegations

Step 3: Highlight Financial Liabilities

Step 4: Show the Claimant’s Earning Capacity

Step 5: Point Out Lifestyle Exaggeration

Step 6: Seek Interim Relief Modification

Step 7: Expose Suppression of Income or Assets

Importance of Documentation in Maintenance Defence

Conclusion

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Decision

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Decision

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021