The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a family court order directing a man to pay Rs 20,000 monthly maintenance to his wife, observing that while he may be responsible for supporting his widowed mother and unmarried sisters, he cannot be expected to maintain his able-bodied, married brother, who can support himself and his wife.Dealing with a plea of husband challenging the family court order, Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal also noted that his acquittal in a cruelty case did not negate his wife’s grounds for living separately.“It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner/husband may be obliged to maintain his widowed mother and unmarried sisters, but with no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner has an obligation/liability to maintain his major and married brother, who is an able-bodied person, competent to maintain himself and his wife,” the order said on October 13.Also Read | ‘Reciprocal cruelty’: Patna High Court backs divorce, grants Rs 36 lakh alimony to wifeThe court noted that the family court has duly taken into consideration the liabilities of the husband while determining the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife. “Even after payment of maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month to the wife, the husband is left with sufficient income to maintain the dependents of his father,” it held.Wife alleged cruelty despite criminal acquittalThe husband was challenging the family court order, which awarded Rs 20,000 to the wife as monthly maintenance. The couple got married in May 2016 and lived together. The husband submitted that after the death of his father, he was given a compassionate appointment; therefore, morally and as per law, he has a liability to maintain all the legal heirs of his father, i.e., mother (widow), two unmarried sisters, and one married brother, who was unemployed.Appearing for the husband, advocate Ram Suphal Verma argued that although the net monthly salary of the petitioner has been found by the family court to be Rs 1 lakh, while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 per month to the wife, it has not taken into consideration the reasonable expenses towards the maintenance of dependent family members.On the other hand, opposing the husband’s plea, the wife argued that after marriage, the petitioner and his family members treated her with cruelty. She submitted that although in the criminal case registered under Section 498-A (domestic violence) of the IPC, the petitioner and his family members have been acquitted, she has filed an appeal, which is still pending.Story continues below this adAcquittal does not negate cruelty allegations: OrderThe court noted that it is undisputed that the husband’s gross salary is Rs 1.82 lakh per month and the take-home salary is Rs 1 lakh per month, and on that basis, the family court has awarded an amount of Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.Also Read | Faulty equipment in powder coating plant ‘risks livelihood’, woman wins Rs 4.6 lakhRegarding the acquittal in the criminal case, the court referred to a division bench judgment and observed, “An acquittal under Section 498-A of the IPC does not wash out the statements of the wife that she was being treated with cruelty, and filing of the complaint related to Section 498-A of the IPC still has bearing on sufficient reason for separate living by wife, although it resulted in acquittal,” it held.The court further observed that the husband had sufficient income to maintain his dependent family members even after paying maintenance to his wife. It also noted that he had deposited 50 per cent of the maintenance arrears with the high court registry instead of the family court, where the amount was required to be deposited to facilitate the wife’s withdrawal. The court viewed this conduct as indicative of mala fide intent to harass her.