Online love story ends in legal tangle, CG HC upholds maintenance to wife

A marriage that began with a friendship on Facebook and culminated in an interfaith wedding under the Special Marriage Act has ended up in prolonged litigation, with the Chhattisgarh high court upholding a maintenance award in favour of the wife.

Dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha on May 15 affirmed a family court order directing the husband to pay Rs 12,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife, Lovely Sagar.

Court records show that the couple came into contact through Facebook, where their acquaintance developed into a friendship and later a relationship. With the consent of their families, the couple solemnised their interfaith marriage in October 2020 under the Special Marriage Act, as the wife is a Christian and the husband belongs to the Jain community.

However, the relationship soon ran into difficulties. According to the wife, she was assured that the husband, who was working in Bengaluru, would arrange separate accommodation and take her there after marriage. She later alleged that she was pressured by her husband and his family to adopt Jain religious customs and practices, leading to marital discord.

The husband subsequently filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage. During the pendency of the matrimonial dispute, the wife approached the family court seeking maintenance, claiming she had no independent means to support herself.

Challenging the maintenance order, the husband argued before the high court that the wife was educated, had worked in a private company before marriage and was capable of maintaining herself. He also contended that she had voluntarily stayed away from the matrimonial home despite his efforts to bring her back.

The high court, however, noted that the family court had found no convincing evidence to establish that the wife was earning or financially self-sufficient. It also observed that the husband had failed to substantiate his claim that he had made sincere efforts to restore matrimonial life.

The family court had taken into account that the husband was employed as an engineer in Bengaluru and earning about Rs 84,000 per month. It held that the wife was unable to maintain herself and was residing separately for sufficient cause, entitling her to maintenance.

The high court also endorsed the family court’s rejection of electronic evidence submitted by the husband through a pen drive, noting that it had not been proved in accordance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the family court’s assessment, the high court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the maintenance award. The High Court reiterated that allegations regarding a spouse’s earning capacity must be backed by concrete evidence before maintenance can be denied.