The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife does not disappear merely because he is a student. The Court observed that an able-bodied person capable of earning cannot avoid maintenance responsibilities by citing financial difficulties or ongoing education.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal dismissed a revision petition filed by a 22-year-old electrical engineering student who challenged an order directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month to his estranged wife.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnized in June 2020. According to the husband's submissions, he was only 16 years and 4 months old at the time, while the woman was 25 years old. The couple had no children.
In 2023, the husband initiated proceedings seeking annulment of the marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Subsequently, the wife moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance after the parties had been living separately for several years.
In August 2025, the Family Court at Faridabad directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month. Challenging that order, he approached the High Court.
The husband argued that he was a student with no independent source of income and that his family survived on his mother's widow pension of ₹3,000 per month. He also contended that the wife was residing with her parents and four earning brothers and therefore did not require maintenance.
Justice Nagpal emphasized that maintenance provisions are intended to prevent a wife from falling into destitution and are not meant to punish a husband.
The Court observed:
“He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. Nor can he be absolved on the ground that he is a student.”
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), the Court noted that Section 125 CrPC is designed to provide financial support to a woman who has been compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
The Court further stated that claims of unemployment or lack of income cannot automatically excuse a husband from his legal responsibility. It observed that a healthy and able-bodied man is expected to support his wife unless legally exempted.
Justice Nagpal also noted that the Family Court was justified in disregarding the husband's affidavit claiming zero income, observing that even a daily wage worker could earn approximately ₹12,000 to ₹13,000 per month.
Considering the husband's ability to earn and the rising cost of essential commodities, the High Court held that the maintenance amount of ₹2,500 per month was modest and necessary for the wife's basic survival.
Finding no legal error in the Family Court's order, the Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the direction requiring the husband to pay interim maintenance to his wife.
