In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that if a husband claims he cannot afford to pay the maintenance amount directed by the court, then it becomes his duty to earn more and fulfill his responsibility towards his wife and minor children.
The Court rejected a petition filed by a husband who challenged the Family Court’s interim maintenance order of ₹24,700 per month in favor of his wife and two children. He had contended that his financial liabilities made him incapable of affording the amount.
“In case, the petitioner is not able to earn the aforesaid amount, then it is rather his duty to earn more and after earning more, he has to maintain his children and wife under the provisions of law,” Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri remarked while rejecting the plea.
The couple had married in 2014, and two children were born from the marriage. The husband claimed that his wife had left his company without any valid reason and had been living separately for around five years.
He further submitted that he is employed as a Senior Male Nurse at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, drawing a monthly salary of ₹57,606 as per his September 2024 payslip. He argued that nearly half of his income was being claimed as maintenance, while he also had to support his ailing mother and manage other liabilities, including EMIs on loans.
Read also:- Why did Karnataka High Court Issue Notice on Proton Mail’s Appeal Against Blocking Order?
Additionally, he alleged that his wife is working as a teacher, but conceded that no proof of her income was submitted before the Family Court when the interim maintenance was considered.
However, the High Court refused to accept these arguments, holding that personal liabilities could not outweigh the statutory and moral responsibility of maintaining one’s spouse and children.
“It is not only the legal and statutory obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor children but also his social and economic liability to maintain them,” the Court emphasized.
Read also:- Why Karnataka High Court Praised Hindus and Muslims of Yadgir District, What Happened?
On the matter of the amount being excessive, Justice Puri noted that the wife had custody of the children aged around 8 and 6 years, who were presumably attending school. Considering current living costs and inflation, the Court found ₹24,700 to be a reasonable amount.
“The total amount of ₹24,700/- per month cannot be said to be on the higher side by any stretch of imagination,” the bench added.
The Court also made it clear that the existence of other liabilities cannot be accepted as a valid ground to deny legally entitled maintenance to the wife and children.
“The aforesaid amount of ₹24,700/- per month to the respondents is neither excessive nor is erroneous,” the Court held.
Consequently, the husband’s plea was dismissed.
Case Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Raman Kaswan
