The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹40,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, emphasizing that the ability to earn is not the same as actual income.
Background of the Case
The case, Saurabh Malviya vs Apurva Malviya, arose from a criminal revision petition filed by the husband challenging a maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Mandsaur.
The couple married in May 2018 under the Special Marriage Act and lived together until August 2022. The wife later filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹50,000 per month as maintenance, claiming she had no independent income and was subjected to cruelty.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Extraordinary Pension in Uttarakhand Doctor Killing Case
The Family Court partially allowed her plea and granted ₹40,000 per month from the date of application.
The husband argued that the wife was well-qualified, held an engineering degree, and was capable of earning. He claimed she had independent financial resources and that the Family Court ignored evidence showing her earning capacity.
The wife, on the other hand, maintained that she had no current source of income and required financial support, while the husband was financially well-off with multiple income sources.
Justice Gajendra Singh carefully examined the evidence and drew a clear distinction between potential and actual earnings.
The Court observed,
“There is difference between ‘may earn’ and ‘is earning’.”
It noted that even if the wife was qualified, there was no proof that she was currently earning. The Court also highlighted that if a woman leaves her job due to marital obligations, she remains entitled to maintenance until she secures sufficient income.
Read also:- Madras High Court Shields Lawyer from Defamation Case, Allows Trial Against Co-Accused
Further, the Court found that the husband failed to produce concrete proof of his income despite denying the figures presented by the wife.
Holding that the maintenance amount was proportionate to the husband’s financial status, the High Court refused to interfere with the Family Court’s order.
The revision petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the husband to seek modification in case of a change in circumstances.
Case Details
Case Title: Saurabh Malviya vs Apurva Malviya
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3453 of 2025
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Gajendra Singh
Decision Date: 23 March 2026
