Himachal Pradesh HC Raps Husband For Misusing Maintenance Deal After Evicting Wife, Child

Last Updated:May 01, 2026, 18:19 IST

The court observed that the husband could not rely on a compromise to escape liability after allegedly turning his wife and child out of the matrimonial home.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on a husband for attempting to stall the execution of a 15-year-old maintenance order, noting that he had already benefited from a settlement but later acted unfairly towards his wife and minor child.

Dismissing his plea, the court observed that the husband could not rely on a compromise to escape liability after allegedly turning his wife and child out of the matrimonial home and withholding maintenance. It held that such conduct amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

The case relates to a 2011 order passed by a judicial magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife had approached the court in 2010, alleging harassment by her husband and in-laws after the birth of a daughter. She also claimed she was forced to leave the shared household and sought protection, residence rights, custody of her child, and maintenance, Indian Express reported.

ALSO READ: MP Woman Calls Husband’s Sister His ‘Second Wife’ To Get Divorce, Case Reaches High Court

The magistrate had granted her relief, including protection orders, accommodation-related directions, and monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 for her and the child, along with Rs 50,000 compensation for mental agony.

The husband later challenged the execution of this order, arguing that it was no longer valid due to a settlement reached between the parties. However, the High Court noted that the same compromise had already been used by him to get earlier relief, but was now being cited selectively to avoid obligations.

The bench observed that while the husband had derived benefit from the settlement, the wife and child were allegedly left without support and dignity. Justice Romesh Verma, who heard the matter, held that the plea had no merit and dismissed it.

The court directed the executing court to proceed expeditiously and bring the long-pending matter to its logical conclusion.

“Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. This is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court," it observed.

News india Himachal Pradesh HC Raps Husband For Misusing Maintenance Deal After Evicting Wife, Child

Read More