A wife living in her husband’s joint family cannot claim separate maintenance for that period.

The first respondent, the appellant’s wife, and their minor son sued for monthly maintenance, past arrears, a charge over the appellant’s property to secure those arrears, and an injunction against alienation.

The Sub Court awarded maintenance of ₹3,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,000 per month to the son, fixed past arrears at ₹1,20,000, and created a charge over the property. The first appellate court dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

In the second appeal, the appellant disputed the period for which maintenance was due and the continuation of the charge.

The High Court considered evidence that the wife and child had lived with the appellant’s family until December 2015, and noted that the appellant had paid ₹1,50,000 by demand draft during the appeal.

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to maintenance for the period from 1 November 2014 to 1 October 2016, or only from January 2016

Whether the charge over the suit property should continue after payment of the original past-maintenance arrears

What consequential relief and directions were appropriate concerning the outstanding amount, future maintenance, and possession of the property

The judgment identifies no specific maintenance statute, statutory provision governing the property charge, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeds on the case-specific view that the wife was not entitled to separate maintenance for the period when she and the child lived with the husband’s family, and that maintenance was payable from January 2016 onwards.

It further holds that the charge created to secure the original arrears should be released once those arrears had been paid.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as stated in the prayer; the judgment does not separately discuss the provision’s governing test.

The Court relied on the wife’s testimony and the judgment in the domestic-violence proceeding to find that she had lived with the appellant and his parents until February 2015, and assessed the surrounding evidence as supporting her continued residence with the in-laws until December 2015. It therefore rejected the claim to maintenance for the earlier period and held that maintenance was due from January 2016.

The Court calculated maintenance at ₹5,000 per month through 2026, added ₹19,499 in case expenses, and deducted the appellant’s ₹1,50,000 payment, leaving ₹5,29,499 payable. Because the charge secured the original arrears of ₹1,20,000, which the Court found had been paid, it ordered the charge released.

The second appeal was partly allowed. The Court directed the appellant to pay the balance of ₹5,29,499 by 30 October 2026, and ordered future annual maintenance of ₹60,000 to be paid in advance each January.

It directed release of the charge and required the wife to hand over the property keys by 30 October 2026, simultaneously with payment of the balance. It also stated that the son could live with the appellant and his mother if he wished.