₹7K Maintenance 'Absolutely Meagre' Amount In Today's Time: Patna HC Finds Able-Bodied Fruit Seller Husband Capable To Pay
The Patna High Court recently upheld a Family Court order directing a fruit seller husband to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as it noted that the said amount is 'absolutely a meagre' sum in today's time. A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri thus dismissed the husband's criminal revision petition while observing that it is not the actual income but...
The Patna High Court recently upheld a Family Court order directing a fruit seller husband to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as it noted that the said amount is 'absolutely a meagre' sum in today's time.
A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri thus dismissed the husband's criminal revision petition while observing that it is not the actual income but the capacity of the husband to earn is the prime consideration while granting maintenance allowance in favour of the wife
In this case, the petitioner (Md. Saddam Hussain) challenged a family court's August 2024 order directing him to pay his wife maintenance of ₹7,000 per month, effective September 20, 2021, the date of filing of her petition.
Petitioner-revisionist argued that he earns only around ₹3,000 per month by selling fruits on a thela and did not have sufficient income to comply with the order.
He further contended that he had expressed readiness to keep his wife at home and maintain her with full dignity and honour; however, she had refused without sufficient cause. On this ground, he claimed she was not entitled to maintenance.
Counsel for the wife submitted that though the petitioner is a fruit seller, he earns between Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month by selling fruits.
It was also argued that nowadays, the business of selling fruit is a lucrative source of income. The Trial Court assessed his income as Rs. 20,000/- per month and accordingly directed him to pay his wife a maintenance allowance of Rs. 7,000/- per month, which is not at all excessive.
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that maintenance allowance is determined not solely on declared earnings but on the husband's capacity to earn:
"It is not the actual income but the capacity of the husband to income is the prime consideration while granting maintenance allowance in favour of the wife".
Furthermore, on the rising cost of living in the present time, Justice Chaudhuri observed thus:
"Rs. 7,000/- per month today is absolutely a meager amount for maintenance of a person. More than Rs. 3,000/- is spent per month for one person for having absolutely frugal meal twice today. Thereafter, there are expenditure for clothing, medicine and other bare requirements of life of the opposite party".
Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the petitioner was an able-bodied man earning livelihood by selling fruits, and therefore capable of paying the amount fixed by the Family Court.
Consequently, his plea was dismissed.