Justice Gajendra Singh<\/strong> observed,<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The couple, Vaishali and Sunil Sonar<\/strong>, got married on February 20, 2018<\/strong>, as per Hindu rituals in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. According to the wife, she was harassed for dowry<\/strong> and was forced to leave her matrimonial home on June 24, 2018<\/strong>. She filed an application on November 14, 2018<\/strong>, seeking \u20b925,000 per month<\/strong> as maintenance<\/strong>, citing cruelty and neglect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband opposed<\/strong> the application, stating that no dowry demand<\/a> was made. He claimed that the wife was a qualified doctor earning \u20b945,000 per month<\/strong> and was living separately without valid reasons. He added that his aged parents<\/strong> were dependent on him and prayed that the petition be dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court<\/strong>, after reviewing the case, rejected her claim<\/strong>, concluding that she was living separately without sufficient cause. Dissatisfied with the decision, the wife filed a revision petition before the High Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wife\u2019s Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife\u2019s counsel argued that merely renewing her medical registration<\/strong> did not prove she was employed. She was unemployed, dependent on her father<\/strong>, and had taken a bank loan<\/strong> to pursue her MD (Homeopathy)<\/strong> from Swasthya Kalyan Homeopathic Medical College and Research Centre, Jaipur<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, the husband was a Technician at ONGC<\/strong>, earning \u20b974,000 per month<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n High Court\u2019s Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court noted that the wife had completed her Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine<\/strong> in 2017<\/strong> and registered as a practitioner. During the COVID-19 pandemic<\/strong>, she worked temporarily<\/strong> as an Aayush Chikitsak<\/strong> under the National Health Mission<\/strong> for limited periods of 89 days and 62 days<\/strong>, receiving a stipend of \u20b925,000 per month<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The record also showed that the wife\u2019s parents had tried twice to reconcile<\/strong> the couple but failed. Only after receiving her maintenance notice<\/strong>, the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed that the husband made no real effort<\/strong> to bring his wife back, instead focusing only on proving that she was earning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Gajendra Singh found that the Family Court\u2019s findings were incorrect<\/strong>, as the wife had valid reasons to live separately. The husband\u2019s responsibility toward his parents could not erase his duty toward his wife<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Judicial Observations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n “Equality in marital tie up does not mean development of only one and only restrictions for the other especially wife.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Court\u2019s Final Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Setting aside the Family Court\u2019s order, the High Court ruled:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The court further said that if the wife\u2019s circumstances change after completing her course, or she gains employment, the husband may seek modification of the maintenance order under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment highlights the progressive view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/strong>, recognizing a husband\u2019s moral and legal duty<\/strong> to support his wife\u2019s education and empowerment<\/strong>. It reaffirms that marriage does not end a woman\u2019s individuality, and both partners have equal rights and responsibilities<\/strong> in a marital relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The order reflects the court\u2019s balanced approach in protecting women\u2019s rights while maintaining fairness in marital obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table: All Laws & Sections Explained in the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Case Background<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Madhya](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Act \/ Law<\/th> Section Mentioned<\/th> Legal Meaning \/ Purpose<\/th> How It Applies in This Case<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 19(4)<\/strong><\/td> Allows filing a revision before the High Court against an order passed by a Family Court.<\/td> The wife (Vaishali) filed this revision petition in the High Court after her maintenance plea was rejected by the Family Court, Ratlam.<\/td><\/tr> Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973<\/strong><\/td> Section 397<\/strong><\/td> Empowers the High Court or Sessions Court to examine records of inferior courts to correct legal errors.<\/td> The revision petition was filed under this section to challenge the Family Court\u2019s incorrect findings.<\/td><\/tr> CrPC, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Section 125(4)<\/strong><\/td> Denies maintenance to a wife if she lives separately without valid reason or by mutual consent.<\/td> The Family Court wrongly held she lived separately without cause. The High Court found she had sufficient reason (harassment & dowry demand).<\/td><\/tr> CrPC, 1973<\/strong><\/td> Section 127<\/strong><\/td> Allows modification of maintenance orders if circumstances change.<\/td> The High Court said the husband may later apply for modification if the wife becomes employed after completing her MD.<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Section 146<\/strong><\/td> Replaces CrPC Section 127 under the new code, allowing similar modification of maintenance.<\/td> The Court mentioned this as the current applicable section after the introduction of BNSS, 2023.<\/td><\/tr> National Health Mission (NHM)<\/strong><\/td> (Employment Reference)<\/em><\/td> Central government health mission employing doctors during COVID-19.<\/td> The wife worked only temporarily under NHM as Ayush Chikitsak; it was not a permanent or regular income source.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n