‘Enjoying Harley Davidson While Shirking Duty’: MP High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea To Reduce Maintenance [Read Order]

Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a man’s plea challenging a family court’s maintenance order, observing that the husband was attempting to avoid his responsibilities while enjoying a luxurious lifestyle, including ownership of an expensive Harley Davidson motorcycle.

Justice Gajendra Singh delivered the judgment on September 22, 2025, imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 on the husband for his frivolous challenge to the maintenance award.

The case involved a couple married on September 15, 2018, according to Hindu–Sikh rituals, who were blessed with twin children in November 2019. However, their marriage faced severe challenges when one of the twins was born with significant health complications requiring continuous medical care.

The family court had awarded Rs. 15,000 per month to the wife, Rs. 7,000 to one minor child, and Rs. 12,000 to the other minor child, totaling Rs. 34,000 monthly maintenance from the date of application on February 15, 2022.

The wife’s application revealed disturbing circumstances surrounding the birth of their twins. She alleged that during pregnancy, sonography revealed one twin had health issues, and her mother-in-law opposed the child’s birth, suggesting “he be removed because his whole life will be a liability on the family” and denying treatment. The couple separated in March 2020, with the wife and children moving to her maternal home without any maintenance arrangements.

The husband contested the maintenance amount, denying the allegations and claiming limited financial capacity. He argued that his wife had concealed her thalassemia condition, which affected their child’s health, and that she was living separately without sufficient cause while threatening self-harm if he refused her demands.

However, the family court found that the husband was the proprietor of a transport company, owned a luxurious home in the Shahibaug area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, earned rental income, and had a monthly income of Rs. 70,000–80,000. The court noted that the wife, despite holding an MBA degree, could not work due to her full-time engagement in caring for their special-needs child.

Medical records revealed the severity of the younger child’s condition. The child was being treated for neuro-rehabilitation at a hospital in Indore, suffering from “chronic malnutrition and growth delay” and requiring “regular follow-up due to cystic encephalomalacia in the left side of the brain and excavation dilation of both occipital bones and cortical laminar necrosis.”

Justice Gajendra Singh made sharp observations about the husband’s conduct:
“Dispute arose after birth of respondent no. 3 with challenges and this is the mother/respondent no. 1 who is taking the challenges of all odds but the father who should have to take more challenges or at least should have supported the respondent no. 1/wife is shirking the liability for one or another reasons.”

The court noted the husband’s lifestyle contradicted his claims of financial hardship:
“He is enjoying the personal life with expensive bikes. Here is not a case where a wife is claiming maintenance for her luxuries but claiming the maintenance due to the circumstances arose due to equal participation of revision petitioner/husband.”

The court also emphasized the husband’s moral and legal obligation:
“It is the bounden duty of the revision petitioner/husband to bear that duty with all sincerity and use all the resources but the arguments advanced by the revision petitioner/husband do not reflect his sincerity.”

The court also addressed the wife’s counter-petition seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 34,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 per month. The wife’s counsel argued that the husband had successfully concealed his actual income on paper but his luxurious lifestyle, including ownership of a Harley Davidson motorcycle, revealed his true financial capacity.

However, Justice Singh dismissed both petitions after examining the evidence and cross-examination testimony. The court found that while the husband was attempting to minimize his financial capacity, the awarded maintenance amount was reasonable considering the established income and family circumstances.

Justice Singh therefore concluded that the revision petition had no substance and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable to the wife.
 

[Read Order]