1. Meaning of the Issue

This situation generally arises in three patterns:

1. Wife/child receiving maintenance is medically unwell and travels abroad for treatment
2. Husband (maintenance payer) travels abroad for medical treatment while maintaining default
3. Maintenance arrears exist, and payer claims inability due to foreign medical expenses or travel costs
4. Medical tourism is used as a reason to reduce, delay, or avoid maintenance

Indian courts consistently hold:

Maintenance obligation is independent of personal financial choices, including medical tourism or foreign travel.

2. Core Legal Principles

(A) Maintenance is a statutory obligation

Under:

• Section 125 CrPC (now BNSS equivalent framework)
• Section 24 & 25 Hindu Marriage Act
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Courts treat maintenance as:

• Right to survival
• Not dependent on voluntary expenditures

(B) Medical expenses do NOT override maintenance

Courts have repeatedly held:

• Medical treatment is a personal obligation
• It cannot defeat family support duty

(C) Foreign travel or medical tourism is irrelevant to liability

Even if a spouse:

• Travels abroad
• Undertakes expensive treatment
• Has foreign income fluctuations

Maintenance is still assessed on:

• earning capacity
• lifestyle
• standard of living

3. Key Judicial Precedents (At least 6 Case Laws)

1. Rajnesh v. Neha (Supreme Court, 2020)

Principle:

• Laid down uniform guidelines for maintenance.

Relevance:

• Courts must assess real income, liabilities, and needs
• Maintenance cannot be defeated by unilateral financial burdens

Medical tourism link:

Even medical expenses or lifestyle choices (including foreign travel) are not automatic deductions from maintenance liability.

2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (Supreme Court, 2015)

Principle:

• Maintenance is a measure of social justice

Holding:

• Courts must interpret maintenance laws to ensure economic dignity

Relevance:

• Medical necessity or travel cannot be used to defeat dependent spouse’s dignity rights.

3. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (Supreme Court, 2008)

Principle:

• Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision

Holding:

• “Wife unable to maintain herself” is sufficient; technical defenses are irrelevant.

Relevance:

• Even if payer has medical expenses or is abroad, obligation continues if he has capacity.

4. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (Supreme Court, 2017)

Principle:

• Maintenance must reflect standard of living of matrimonial home

Relevance:

• If medical tourism indicates higher lifestyle or spending, it strengthens maintenance claim—not weakens it.

5. Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (Supreme Court, 2017)

Principle:

• Wife’s employment or independent capacity must be considered, not assumptions.

Relevance:

• Even when wife travels abroad for medical treatment or recovery, it does not reduce entitlement unless she is fully self-sufficient.

6. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (Supreme Court, 2017)

Principle:

• Maintenance cannot be reduced due to voluntary financial commitments

Relevance:

• Medical tourism expenses (self-chosen or elective) cannot be used as a shield against maintenance arrears.

7. Delhi High Court – Interim Maintenance Enhancement Case (2025 order)

Principle:

• Foreign income cannot be mechanically converted for maintenance calculation.

Relevance:

• Even when spouse is abroad (including for treatment or work), courts consider cost of living abroad separately, not as a justification to deny maintenance.

4. Interaction Between Medical Tourism & Maintenance Default

Scenario 1: Maintenance payer travels abroad for medical treatment

Court approach:

• Medical expenditure is considered personal expense
• Does NOT justify non-payment of maintenance
• Court may still enforce recovery from assets/income

Scenario 2: Dependent spouse travels abroad for treatment

Court approach:

• Expenses may strengthen claim for:
  • enhanced maintenance
  • additional medical reimbursement
• Courts may direct payer to bear reasonable medical costs

Scenario 3: Maintenance arrears + claim of financial burden due to treatment

Court approach:

• Courts reject “voluntary burden defence”
• Similar principle as loans/EMIs rejection:
  • voluntary expenses ≠ deduction from maintenance obligation 

5. Important Legal Position Summarised

Courts consistently hold:

• Maintenance = non-negotiable legal duty
• Medical tourism = irrelevant to liability
• Foreign treatment expenses = cannot defeat arrears
• Only exception:
  • proven incapacity to earn + no assets

6. Practical Legal Consequences

If maintenance is unpaid while medical tourism is happening:

Court can:

• Attach salary or foreign income
• Issue warrant for recovery of arrears
• Impose interest on arrears
• In extreme cases, initiate contempt proceedings
• Direct seizure of assets (including abroad-linked assets if traceable)

7. Conclusion

Medical tourism does not legally protect a spouse from maintenance obligations. Indian courts treat maintenance as a fundamental support duty, unaffected by personal choices such as:

• foreign travel
• medical treatment abroad
• lifestyle or financial restructuring

The consistent judicial principle is:

“A spouse’s medical or travel expenses cannot defeat the statutory obligation of maintenance.”