The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently asserted that a wife's adoption of a modern lifestyle cannot be deemed improper or used as a basis to deny her maintenance.

Justice GS Ahluwalia emphasized that labeling a wife's modern choices as "immoral" from the perspective of her husband does not justify denying her rights.

“Leading a modern life without committing an offence cannot be criticized at all. Unless and until it is held that wife is residing separately without any reasonable reason, she cannot be denied maintenance,” the Court observed.

Hence, the court dismissed a petition filed by a man seeking to overturn an order instructing him to provide a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 to his wife.

Additionally, the Court highlighted that, apart from the assertion that his wife led a "modern lifestyle" which he found objectionable, the petitioner failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that she was living separately without valid justification.

In this instance, the 36-year-old husband had contested the decision made by a court in Satna district, which granted maintenance to his 26-year-old wife. The Satna court had additionally directed the man to provide maintenance of ₹3,000 for their toddler son.

The counsel representing the husband challenged the order, arguing that he hailed from a highly orthodox family background, while his wife was described as a "very modern girl." The husband's legal team cited her Facebook posts as evidence supporting their argument. They emphasized that while the husband had no issue with providing maintenance for their son, the amount awarded to the wife should be revoked due to her lifestyle choices.

However, the Court raised doubts about the validity of this argument, questioning whether it could disregard the law based on subjective notions of morality. Furthermore, the Court inquired whether the wife's adoption of a modern lifestyle could genuinely be considered immoral behavior on her part. In response, the counsel representing the husband maintained that law and morality are intertwined and cannot be separated. He argued that moral considerations should take precedence in such matters.

Disagreeing with the arguments presented, the Court asserted that even setting aside the moral considerations, the trial court had only awarded a modest amount of ₹5,000 as maintenance, which cannot be deemed excessive or unreasonable.

Therefore, the Court rejected the husband's petition. However, it clarified that this ruling wouldn't hinder the wife and child from filing a separate application for an increase in the maintenance amount. Advocate Paritosh Trivedi represented the petitioner in this case.