Court orders man to pay maintenance to HIV+ve wife

The Thane district court has upheld the order of a magistrate ordering a 25-year-old man to pay maintenance to his HIV infected wife, and dismissed the appeal filed against it by the husband and his parents.
The woman stated in her application that her marriage was solemnised with the man, a resident of Kalamboli in Raigad district, on May 20, 2013, in Uttar Pradesh.
While the couple was residing in Ahmedabad, the woman became pregnant following which her blood test was done in which it was revealed that she was HIV positive.
Following the disclosure, the husband sent the woman to her parents' house and they bore the expenses of her delivery and medical treatment.

The woman, now residing at her parents house since she is unable to maintain herself and her child, sought interim relief, including Rs 37,000 maintenance per month.
After hearing both the parties, Thane Judicial Magistrate had earlier ordered the husband to pay Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.

However, the woman's husband and his parents challenged the magistrate's order which was recently upheld by the court of District Judge P P Jadhav.
Judge Jadhav observed that the applicant (woman) is residing with her parents because of refusal by opponents (husband and his family) to allow her to co-habit with them.

At this stage, it cannot be ascertained as to how the applicant got infected with HIV.
"The fact that she was diagnosed HIV+ve after the marriage is itself sufficient to conclude that she got infected while continuation of her marital relationship with the opponent," the court observed.
"Under such circumstances, being husband it was the boundant duty of the opponent to look after her and maintain her properly," the Judge said.
Though the opponents have not denied responsibility to maintain the child, no evidence is produced on record to show that the opponent is spending any amount for the same.

Under such circumstances, the applicant being wife and having a child from opponent is entitled to be maintained by him, the court ruled while concluding that the order passed by the magistrate is proper, correct and legal.