The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that a husband must help his wife complete her higher studies and empower herself. The court granted ₹15,000 monthly maintenance to a wife pursuing MD in Homeopathy, overturning a family court’s order.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, in a remarkable decision on October 15, 2025, granted maintenance to wife pursuing MD (Homeopathy) while living separately from her husband. The court said that a husband’s responsibility is not only towards his parents but also towards supporting his wife’s education and empowerment.
Justice Gajendra Singh observed,
“Entering into marital tie up does not mean end of personality of the wife… If the husband has a duty towards his parents, then he has also the duty to complete the course that would enhance the capability of the wife and to empower her. Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other especially wife.”
Case Background
The couple, Vaishali and Sunil Sonar, got married on February 20, 2018, as per Hindu rituals in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. According to the wife, she was harassed for dowry and was forced to leave her matrimonial home on June 24, 2018. She filed an application on November 14, 2018, seeking ₹25,000 per month as maintenance, citing cruelty and neglect.
The husband opposed the application, stating that no dowry demand was made. He claimed that the wife was a qualified doctor earning ₹45,000 per month and was living separately without valid reasons. He added that his aged parents were dependent on him and prayed that the petition be dismissed.
The Family Court, after reviewing the case, rejected her claim, concluding that she was living separately without sufficient cause. Dissatisfied with the decision, the wife filed a revision petition before the High Court.
Wife’s Arguments
The wife’s counsel argued that merely renewing her medical registration did not prove she was employed. She was unemployed, dependent on her father, and had taken a bank loan to pursue her MD (Homeopathy) from Swasthya Kalyan Homeopathic Medical College and Research Centre, Jaipur.
In contrast, the husband was a Technician at ONGC, earning ₹74,000 per month.
High Court’s Findings
The court noted that the wife had completed her Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine in 2017 and registered as a practitioner. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked temporarily as an Aayush Chikitsak under the National Health Mission for limited periods of 89 days and 62 days, receiving a stipend of ₹25,000 per month.
The record also showed that the wife’s parents had tried twice to reconcile the couple but failed. Only after receiving her maintenance notice, the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
The court observed that the husband made no real effort to bring his wife back, instead focusing only on proving that she was earning.
Justice Gajendra Singh found that the Family Court’s findings were incorrect, as the wife had valid reasons to live separately. The husband’s responsibility toward his parents could not erase his duty toward his wife.
Key Judicial Observations
“If the husband has a duty towards his parents, then he has also the duty to complete the course that would enhance the capability of the wife and to empower her.”
“Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other especially wife.”
Court’s Final Decision
The court emphasized that the wife required financial support to complete her MD and that her temporary COVID-19 duty could not be considered gainful employment.
Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court ruled:
“Thus, an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is quantified as maintenance payable to the revision petitioner/wife which shall be payable from the date of application except the period of one year for which the revision petitioner was getting stipend.”
The court further said that if the wife’s circumstances change after completing her course, or she gains employment, the husband may seek modification of the maintenance order under the law.
Conclusion
This judgment highlights the progressive view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, recognizing a husband’s moral and legal duty to support his wife’s education and empowerment. It reaffirms that marriage does not end a woman’s individuality, and both partners have equal rights and responsibilities in a marital relationship.
The order reflects the court’s balanced approach in protecting women’s rights while maintaining fairness in marital obligations.
Table: All Laws & Sections Explained in the Case
| Act / Law | Section Mentioned | Legal Meaning / Purpose | How It Applies in This Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Section 19(4) | Allows filing a revision before the High Court against an order passed by a Family Court. | The wife (Vaishali) filed this revision petition in the High Court after her maintenance plea was rejected by the Family Court, Ratlam. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 | Section 397 | Empowers the High Court or Sessions Court to examine records of inferior courts to correct legal errors. | The revision petition was filed under this section to challenge the Family Court’s incorrect findings. |
| CrPC, 1973 | Section 125(4) | Denies maintenance to a wife if she lives separately without valid reason or by mutual consent. | The Family Court wrongly held she lived separately without cause. The High Court found she had sufficient reason (harassment & dowry demand). |
| CrPC, 1973 | Section 127 | Allows modification of maintenance orders if circumstances change. | The High Court said the husband may later apply for modification if the wife becomes employed after completing her MD. |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 | Section 146 | Replaces CrPC Section 127 under the new code, allowing similar modification of maintenance. | The Court mentioned this as the current applicable section after the introduction of BNSS, 2023. |
| National Health Mission (NHM) | (Employment Reference) | Central government health mission employing doctors during COVID-19. | The wife worked only temporarily under NHM as Ayush Chikitsak; it was not a permanent or regular income source. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Vaishali vs Sunil Sonar
- Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:30316
- Judgment Date: Pronounced on October 15, 2025
- Reserved On: September 15, 2025
- Judge (Bench): Hon’ble Shri Justice Gajendra Singh
- Petitioner (Wife): Vaishali
- Respondent (Husband): Sunil Sonar
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Pragya Swami, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondent: Shri Nipun Choudhary, Advocate
- Family Court Order Challenged: Dated 24.12.2024, in MJCR No. 351/2018 (Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam)
- High Court Decision: Family Court order set aside; maintenance granted ₹15,000/month from date of application (excluding 1-year stipend period)
- Legal Provision Invoked: Section 19(4), Family Courts Act, 1984; Section 397, CrPC 1973; Section 125(4), CrPC 1973; Section 127 CrPC (now Section 146 BNSS 2023)
- Marriage: 20 February 2018 (Hindu rituals, Ratlam)
- Alleged Dowry Harassment & Ouster: 24 June 2018 – Wife left matrimonial home
- Maintenance Application Filed: 14 November 2018 (₹25,000 per month claimed)
- Husband’s Defence: Wife allegedly earning ₹45,000/month; old parents dependent
- Wife’s Defence: Unemployed, dependent on father, pursuing MD (Homeopathy) from Jaipur; husband earns ₹74,000/month (ONGC Technician)
- Family Court Judgment: 24 December 2024 – Maintenance denied
- High Court Revision Filed: 2025 – Challenged Family Court’s rejection
- High Court Decision: 15 October 2025 – Maintenance allowed; ₹15,000/month awarded
- Bench’s View: Marriage should empower both partners; husband must support wife’s studies
- Stipend Exception: One-year COVID duty stipend period excluded from maintenance period
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised