In a significant ruling on marital responsibility and women's financial independence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on Wednesday partly allowed a revision plea filed by Vaishali against her husband Sunil Sonar. The Court set aside the Family Court's 2024 order that had rejected her plea for maintenance, observing that 'equality in a marriage does not mean development of one and restrictions for the other.'
Justice Gajendra Singh, delivering the verdict on October 15, 2025, directed the husband, an ONGC technician earning ₹74,000 per month, to pay ₹15,000 monthly maintenance to his wife from the date of her application - except for one year when she was employed on a temporary basis during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background
The couple married on February 20, 2018, in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, following Hindu customs. According to the petition, Vaishali was allegedly subjected to dowry demands and cruelty soon after marriage and was ousted from her matrimonial home on June 24, 2018. Since then, she has been residing with her parents in Ratlam.
Vaishali filed for maintenance in November 2018, stating that she had no independent source of income and required ₹25,000 per month. The husband opposed the claim, asserting that she was a qualified homeopathic doctor earning ₹45,000 a month and that she left the marital home without justification.
The Family Court in Ratlam, in December 2024, dismissed her plea on the grounds that she was 'living separately without sufficient reason' and was capable of maintaining herself.
Court's Observations
The High Court, however, found the Family Court's conclusions "contrary to evidence and an improper understanding of Section 125(4) of the CrPC," which deals with denial of maintenance when a wife refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.
Justice Gajendra Singh noted that the petitioner's work as a temporary Ayush Chikitsak during the COVID-19 crisis did not amount to regular employment. The bench observed,
"Her service was purely temporary and came to an end on 1 April 2022. To assume continued earnings is erroneous."
The Court took a more holistic view of marital responsibilities, remarking that "entering into marital tie-up does not mean the end of the wife's personality." The judge added pointedly,
"If the husband has a duty towards his parents, he equally has a duty to support the wife in pursuing her education."
The judgment emphasized that while the husband’s care for his ailing parents was commendable, it could not be used as an excuse to neglect his wife's basic maintenance.
"Equality in a marriage," Justice Singh wrote, "does not mean the development of only one and restrictions for the other, especially the wife."
The Court also questioned the husband’s sincerity in seeking restitution of conjugal rights, noting that he filed the petition only after receiving her maintenance notice.
Decision
Setting aside the Family Court's order, the High Court directed the husband to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to Vaishali, starting from the date she filed her application, excluding the one-year period when she earned a stipend. The judge clarified that any interim maintenance already paid would be adjusted.
The Court also granted liberty to either party to seek modification of the order under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in case of changed circumstances, such as employment of the wife or reconciliation between the couple.
With that, the criminal revision was allowed partly, bringing a measured close to a long-drawn domestic maintenance battle that began seven years ago.
Case Title: Vaishali vs. Sunil Sonar
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2025