The legal challenge arose from an order dated November 8, 2023, issued by the Appellate Court in response to an application filed by the petitioner-wife in Criminal Appeal No. 498/2022. The petitioner sought directions for her husband to pay arrears of maintenance, as mandated by a previous ruling from the Trial Court on July 30, 2022.

The couple, married on January 20, 2016, had initially lived in the United Kingdom due to the husband's employment. However, following a serious medical incident in February 2017, the petitioner was diagnosed with a severe brain condition, leaving her in need of constant care. The situation escalated when her family decided to bring her back to India for better treatment options, which resulted in significant financial burdens.

The Trial Court recognized the dire medical condition of the petitioner, who was found to be bedridden and in urgent need of monetary assistance. Despite the husband's denial of financial responsibility, the court determined that he was earning a substantial income as a chartered accountant. Consequently, the court ordered him to pay interim maintenance of ?1,20,000 per month and an additional ?1,00,000 towards arrears.

However, the Appellate Court later intervened, reducing the maintenance amount from ?1,20,000 to just ?25,000 per month, despite acknowledging that the husband had failed to make any payments. This decision raised serious concerns regarding the welfare of the petitioner, who remains in a critical medical state.

The Appellate Court's ruling lacked the necessary reasoning for such a drastic reduction and overlooked the implications of the husband's failure to comply with the original order. It also failed to consider the ongoing medical expenses incurred by the petitioner's family.

Upon reviewing the case, the higher court concluded that the Appellate Court had erred in its decision. The ruling emphasized that the husband’s obligations, particularly in light of the petitioner’s medical condition, should take precedence over his claims regarding the adequacy of care in the UK.

The court reinstated the original maintenance order, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to receive the care and financial support required for her treatment. It also underscored the importance of expediting the appeal process, given the prolonged nature of the case and the petitioner’s precarious health situation.

This case serves as a poignant reminder of the urgent need for legal systems to prioritize the welfare of vulnerable individuals, especially in domestic violence situations. The court’s recent decision reinstates vital support for the petitioner while urging the Appellate Court to resolve the ongoing appeal promptly.