Friday, Apr 26, 2024 | Last Update : 04:30 PM IST

  India    Wife entitled for maintenance from hubby, not in-laws: court

Wife entitled for maintenance from hubby, not in-laws: court

PTI
Published : Oct 10, 2016, 6:10 pm IST
Updated : Oct 10, 2016, 6:10 pm IST

A special made the observation as it was disposing a domestic violence case.

dc-Cover-d00iaq7od8h6mj1i46j1mcu2t3-20161010180810.Medi_.jpeg
 dc-Cover-d00iaq7od8h6mj1i46j1mcu2t3-20161010180810.Medi_.jpeg

A special made the observation as it was disposing a domestic violence case.

New Delhi:

A wife is entitled to seek maintenance only from her husband and is not liable to be maintained by her in-laws, a special court has said.

Special judge Anil Kumar made the observations in a domestic violence case while barring a married woman from entering her matrimonial house, noting that the property belonged to her mother-in-law who had disowned her son.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the woman's mother-in law against a magisterial court's order which had allowed the woman to enter her matrimonial house.

"In my opinion a wife cannot be allowed to claim the maintenance, including accommodation, from her in laws exonerating her husband. A wife is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband and she is not liable to be maintained by in-laws.

"In view of above observations it is held that respondent/complainant (wife) has prima facie no right to re-enter the house of her mother-in-law," the court said.

The woman had filed a complaint before the trial court that after her marriage in January 2011, she started residing with her husband and other in-laws in her matrimonial house in Najafgarh area of Southwest Delhi.

However in March 2015, she and her husband were barred by her in-laws from entering the matrimonial house after a quarrel. Thereafter, a case was filed in this regard, the woman had claimed.

In its order, the trial court had allowed the woman to enter her matrimonial house.

Thereafter, the woman's mother-in-law approached the sessions court, claiming that her daughter-in-law had no residence right in her property and it was only the husband who was solely liable to provide accommodation to her.