Abhishek Bachchan can breathe easy. If Aishwarya Rai decides to dump him when his films flop and then demand maintenance, chances are she will be denied.

In what can be termed a landmark judgment, Calcutta High Court on Thursday ruled that if the wife leaves her husband “without a valid reason”, she will not be entitled to maintenance.

Justice P.N. Sinha set aside the order of a Barrackpore court, directing a man to pay Rs 1,700 per month as maintenance to his wife, who was not willing to stay with him at their Baranagar home. She had moved into her parents’ place in Barrackpore with their four-year-son.

“The petitioner (husband) will only pay Rs 1,000 per month for the maintenance of the minor child. But he will not have to pay any maintenance to his wife, as she left the house on her own and did not come back even after repeated requests from her husband,” the court observed.

The moral of the ruling was clear — if the wife leaves of her own volition “without enough reason” and refuses to live with her husband even though he is willing to live with her, she forfeits her right to maintenance.

The child in this case remains with his mother, as he is a minor.

Today’s judgment is significant as it goes against the common belief that wives automatically have the right to claim maintenance from their husbands after leaving home.

“The observation of the court is just. Law is equal for everyone. In the present case, it has been proved that the husband had tried his best to bring his wife back home, but failed,” said advocate Sailendu Rakshit of the high court.

The protagonists of this separation drama are computer mechanic Partha Pratim Basak, 31, a resident of Baranagar, and Arundhati, 26. They were married in 2000.

Trouble started last year, when Arundhati began to spend more time with her parents. She used to take her son along and stay on for days.

When Partha demanded an explanation and urged his wife to return home, she allegedly told him that she wanted to live in Barrackpore with her parents and not with him in Baranagar.

“Arundhati refused to return home but demanded that Partha provide her monthly maintenance. In this case, when the husband is not at fault and wants to make the marriage work, why should he be penalised?” demanded Kaushik Dey, lawyer appearing for Partha in the high court, challenging the Barrackpore court order.

Dalia Roy, representing Arundhati, argued that it was her “fundamental right” to choose where she wanted to live — with her parents or with her husband.

The high court ruled in favour of the husband.