Skip to main content

Maintenance / Alimony case Lawyer in Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi


Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi


Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi



In SG v. DG, decided on 9 September 2025, the Delhi High Court clarified that a wife cannot be denied maintenance simply because she applied after her husband filed for divorce. The bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the right to seek maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act continues to exist during divorce proceedings, regardless of who approached the court first. This ruling overturned the family court’s order and emphasized the importance of financial support during litigation. 
Facts of the Case
The couple married in 2009. Before marriage, the wife had worked for about three and a half years. Later she moved to Singapore for employment. After giving birth, she returned to India within four months and stopped working altogether. The husband, however, continued his job in Singapore, earning a salary of nearly ten lakh rupees per month.

The dispute began when the husband filed a divorce petition. The wife then applied for maintenance pendente lite, seeking financial support for herself and the child. The family court dismissed her claim for maintenance. It reasoned that she was well-educated and capable of earning but had chosen not to work. The court, however, awarded twenty-five thousand rupees per month as maintenance for the minor child. Dissatisfied with this decision, the wife approached the Delhi High Court.
Court Says
The High Court carefully examined the findings of the family court and found them unsustainable. It noted that there was no evidence to show that the wife had access to employment opportunities in India after she returned. The assumption that she deliberately avoided work had no basis in fact. The court also highlighted that she was taking full care of her newborn child. According to the judges, looking after a newborn requires constant attention, love, and presence, which makes it unrealistic to expect her to work at the same time.

The bench further clarified that the timing of the application cannot be used against a wife. Filing for maintenance after the husband’s divorce petition does not disqualify her claim. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits an application for maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of divorce proceedings. Therefore, the law does not support the argument that a wife loses her right merely because her husband initiated litigation earlier.

After considering the financial position of the parties, the court concluded that the husband’s high salary of nearly ten lakh rupees per month justified a substantial maintenance award. The court ordered him to pay two lakh rupees per month for the support of both his wife and their child. The payment was directed to commence from the date of her application for maintenance.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in SG v. DG strengthens the protective framework of matrimonial law. It ensures that maintenance rights remain accessible even when applications are filed later in the proceedings. It affirms the value of caregiving and places financial responsibility squarely on the earning spouse. The ruling not only benefits the parties in this case but also serves as a guiding principle for courts and litigants in similar disputes across the country.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Best Divorce lawyer Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court Best divorce lawyer in East delhi Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Best divorce lawyer in Delhi Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi Best divorce lawyer in new delhi Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi Mutual consent divorce lawyer Best mutual divorce lawyer Maintenance case lawyer Domestic violence case lawyer

Best Divorce & Criminal Lawyer in Delhi

📌 Supreme Court Reiterates: Hostile Testimony Cannot Be Rejected Entirely | Best Divorce & Criminal Lawyer in Delhi The Supreme Court, in DADU @ Ankush & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , has reaffirmed that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected completely . Courts must evaluate the consistent portions of evidence that support either the prosecution or the defence. This ruling highlights how crucial expert cross-examination, evidence assessment, and courtroom strategy are in criminal trials. If you are facing criminal charges, false allegations, domestic violence cases, divorce proceedings, or family disputes , having the best criminal lawyer in Delhi  or an experienced divorce lawyer in Delhi is vital for protecting your rights. ⚖️ Why Choose Us? We provide professional, strategic, and result-oriented legal representation in: ✔️ Criminal Defence Cases ✔️ Divorce & Matrimonial Cases ✔️ Domestic Violence (DV) Matters ✔️ Child Custody & M...

Best Divorce Case Lawyer in Delhi | Advocate Devashish Maharishi

✅ Best Divorce Case Lawyer in Delhi | Advocate Devashish Maharishi Trusted Advocate for Divorce case, Domestic Violence case, Maintenance & Alimony case & NRI Mutual Consent Divorce case & other Family Disputes – Karkardooma Court, Delhi ⚖️ Real Judgment. Real Impact. Your Legal Rights Protected. In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) reaffirmed that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household is not dependent on her actual residence in it. This crucial decision strengthens women's rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , particularly under Section 17(1) . 📌 Key Takeaway from the Judgment (ABC v. XYZ & Anr. – Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:9202): “The right to reside in the shared household is a legal right, enforceable by a woman in a domestic relationship – regardless of whether she actually resided there in the past or not.” – Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, Bombay High Court 🔍 Legal Analysis of...