The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a husband's responsibility to maintain his wife continues for life, irrespective of age or physical condition, provided he has the means to do so.
The judgment came while dismissing an appeal filed by an 86-year-old retired Army officer who challenged a family court order directing him to pay ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance to his 77-year-old wife.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Denies Indian Citizenship Without Renunciation Certificate from Pakistan
Upholding the family court’s decision, Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal emphasised that a woman cannot be left to depend solely on her children if her husband is financially capable.
"The husband, who has the financial capacity and income to support his wife, is bound by law and morality to maintain her as long as she is alive. It is no answer to her claim of maintenance that she can seek support and maintenance from her sons," the court observed.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Cancels 'UNKIND' Trademark in Favor of Mankind Pharma’s 'KIND' Family
The husband, who is paralysed and dependent on his sons, argued through his counsel that he was helpless and that his wife was already supported by their children. He further claimed that all his land and property were in the possession of his sons, leaving him with no resources to provide for his wife.
Rejecting these arguments, the bench noted that the man continues to receive a pension of ₹42,750 every month and remains the legal owner of two and a half acres of agricultural land in his native village. The court highlighted that despite his medical condition, his financial position allowed him to support his wife, who herself had no independent income.
Read also:- Supreme Court Issues Notice on UP Bar Council's Rs.14K Fee for Advocates' Enrolment
Taking into account the couple's standard of living, the basic needs of the wife, and the income of the husband, the court concluded that the maintenance amount of ₹15,000, along with ₹11,000 towards litigation costs, was reasonable and justified. By upholding the family court’s ruling, the High Court reinforced the principle that maintenance is not just a statutory obligation but also a moral duty within Indian family life.
Represented the petitioner Advocate Himanshu Joshi
