The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a person suffering from a mental illness cannot be presumed incapable of earning a livelihood or making decisions, affirming that such a diagnosis does not automatically excuse someone from paying spousal maintenance.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary dismissed a petition from a man seeking to overturn a family court order that required him to continue paying Rs 3,000 in monthly interim maintenance to his estranged wife. The High Court found no illegality in the lower court’s decision, noting that individuals with mild, moderate, or borderline mental conditions are fully capable of living under normal social conditions.
In the order dated July 7, the court emphasized that a mental illness should not be viewed as an inherent impairment that prevents an individual from managing their affairs or prosecuting their legal cases.
Case Background
The case stems from a December 2021 directive ordering the husband to pay interim maintenance to his wife. According to the prosecution, the man stopped making these monthly payments in July 2024.
He subsequently filed an application before a family court, requesting an exemption from paying the accumulated maintenance arrears. The man argued that his mental illness should protect him from being forced to pay the outstanding amount or facing adverse legal actions.
The family court rejected his application in August 2025. After examining prior Supreme Court rulings and the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, the family court noted that while the husband had been diagnosed with a mental ailment, his condition had improved with medication. It concluded there was no evidence proving he was unable to work or protect his own interests.
Arguments in Court
Representing the husband, advocate Rahul Pandey argued before the High Court that the family court erred by rejecting the petition in a mechanical manner, despite acknowledging the petitioner’s mental illness.
Conversely, Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Kr Mishra, appearing for the state, argued that the medical documents submitted only established the existence of a mental illness. Mishra stated that a past or current diagnosis does not excuse a person from their maintenance obligations unless there is clear evidence showing they are unable to earn a living or manage their affairs.
