The Court first noted that there was no dispute regarding the marriage between the parties and the legitimacy of their child. It further noted that the wife was not shown to have any means of livelihood.
In that context, the Court reiterated that law, religion, and justice require an able-bodied man to look after his dependent family and that the same was evident in legislation through Section 125 (concerning maintenance) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 24 (maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings) of Hindu Marriage Act.
Source: Barandbench
