Husband Cannot Use Insolvency Proceedings to Evade Maintenance: Bombay High Court

November 20, 2025

The Bombay High Court has clarified an important legal principle: a husband cannot take shelter under insolvency law to avoid paying court-ordered maintenance to his wife. The ruling strongly reinforces that maintenance is not a commercial debt but a personal and statutory obligation that continues irrespective of bankruptcy.

Background of the Case

A single-judge bench of Justice Jitendra Jain delivered the ruling while dismissing an insolvency petition filed by Mehul Jagdish Trivedi, a Mumbai-based dance teacher.

The petitioner had been ordered by a family court in May 2021 to pay monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 to his wife. Claiming an income of ₹15,000 per month, he argued that he was unable to pay the arrears, which had accumulated to ₹22.3 lakh. To escape liability, he sought to be declared insolvent under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.

Court’s Key Findings

1. Maintenance Is Not a “Debt” Under Insolvency Law

Justice Jain held that maintenance obligations:

Arise from a moral, personal, and statutory duty,
Do not constitute a "debt" or “financial liability” arising out of commercial transactions,
Therefore cannot be wiped out through insolvency proceedings.

The court relied on the legal position that insolvency law applies only to pecuniary debts or commercial liabilities, not obligations flowing from marital status.

Relevant Statutes Considered

Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909

The petitioner invoked the Act seeking an insolvency declaration.
However, the court clarified:

Maintenance dues are not provable debts under the Act.
Insolvency cannot stay, suspend, or dilute an existing maintenance order.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125

This provision establishes a husband's statutory duty to maintain his wife if she cannot maintain herself. The obligation is intended to prevent destitution, not to create a commercial debt.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18

If applicable, the statute further reinforces the wife's right to separate residence and maintenance.

Constitution of India – Article 15(3) and Article 39

Though not directly cited, these provisions form the foundational basis for protective legislation supporting women’s financial rights.

Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

Justice Jain relied on earlier findings, particularly a Mysore High Court judgment, which held:

Maintenance obligations arise from marital duty and public policy.
These obligations cannot be extinguished through bankruptcy or insolvency.
Courts cannot allow husbands to use insolvency as a shield to defeat maintenance orders.

This principle has been upheld in several jurisdictions in India:

K. Raju v. Visalakshi (Madras HC) – Maintenance is not a dischargeable debt.
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (SC, 2005) – Maintenance ensures basic survival and cannot be undermined.
Rajnesh v. Neha (SC, 2020) – The court emphasized the essential nature of maintenance.

These precedents reinforce that maintenance is a social obligation, not a contractual liability.

Why the Insolvency Petition Was Dismissed

The court observed the following deficiencies:

1. Procedural Defect

The wife did not issue an insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act.
Thus, the petition was not maintainable.

2. Contradiction in Husband’s Stand

The petitioner claimed insolvency would relieve him of maintenance obligations.
But the law clearly states that:

Even after an insolvency declaration, maintenance liability continues.
Therefore, approaching the insolvency court made no legal sense.

3. Attempt to Misuse the Insolvency Framework

Justice Jain held that the petition was filed solely to:

Delay the family court’s order, and
Seek indirectly what he could not obtain directly in maintenance proceedings.

The court stated that the judicial process cannot be misused for indirect relief.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling solidifies a consistent legal position:

Maintenance cannot be avoided by declaring insolvency.
Family law obligations take precedence over insolvency law.
Courts will not permit litigants to misuse insolvency provisions to escape social responsibilities.

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of women’s financial rights and ensures that statutory maintenance orders remain enforceable regardless of the husband's financial manoeuvres.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision reinforces that maintenance is a moral, personal, and statutory duty, immune from bankruptcy laws. The ruling prevents misuse of insolvency proceedings and ensures that the family court’s maintenance orders remain effective.

By holding that maintenance stands on a different footing than commercial debts, the court has protected the foundational principle of maintenance law—ensuring the financial dignity and security of a spouse.