If the adult son is studying then alimony will have to be paid, Gujarat court's important decision on maintenance law

Ahmedabad: A sessions court in Gujarat has upheld the interim order of a metropolitan court. The order is related to the maintenance of an adult. The court has directed the father to pay maintenance to his two adult sons who are studying and his wife under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The woman from Ahmedabad had filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in 2022. She had demanded maintenance from her husband for herself and her sons. The wife had claimed that her husband had abandoned her and her sons without any reason.

The wife had asked for 75 thousand maintenance
The wife argued to the court that the husband earns more than Rs 2 lakh every month and has three luxury cars. On this basis, the wife demanded Rs 75,000 per month for maintenance.

The husband gave this argument
The husband opposed this demand and said that he is already giving her Rs 25,000. She also has two large plots worth Rs 3 crore in her name, besides her own income, while her household income is Rs 75,000. Moreover, their sons are adults, and they too can earn and take care of their mother. The husband cited Section 20(1)(d) of the Act, which allows maintenance for children but not for the adult son, as Section 125 of the CrPC prohibits it.

The metropolitan magistrate had given this order

In February 2023, the metropolitan magistrate passed an interim order, directing the man to pay Rs 28,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. Additionally, the court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs 7000 each to her two sons. The court said that although both of them are adults, they are studying and the expenses of their education are being borne by the mother.

What the court said
The husband challenged the order, saying the metropolitan court did not consider the evidence that his wife was earning and both his sons were adults before directing maintenance. However, Additional Sessions Judge MP Purohit said it was only an interim order and the stage of evidence was pending before the trial court. Holding that there was no irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order, the ASJ said no interference was required at this stage, and dismissed the appeal.