Husband Has 'Duty To Earn More' To Pay Maintenance To Wife, Children If He Is Unable To Afford: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the husband is not able to earn the maintenance amount, it is his duty to earn more to pay the maintenance amount to wife and children.

The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging the Family Court's maintenance order of ₹24,700 for his wife and two minor children, on the ground that he had other liabilities which made him unable to afford it.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "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. Therefore, such an argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the other liabilities that he is not able to pay the aforesaid amount cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected."

The couple was married in 2014 and two children were born out of their wedlock.

It was husband's case that the wife withdrew from his society without any reason and excuse and she has been living separately for almost 5 years.

The husband also submitted he is working as Senior Male Nurse in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and his monthly income has come out to be Rs.57,606 as per the salary slip of September, 2024.

Hence, he contended that the maintenance which is almost half of his monthly salary particularly in view of the fact that he has to also take care of his ailing mother and has other liabilities as well pertaining to EMIs regarding the loan which he had taken. 

He further submitted that his wife is also working as a Teacher but no record was produced before the Family Court at the time of consideration of application for grant of interim maintenance.

After hearing the submissions, the Court refused to consider the argument that the husband has other liabilities to pay and has to take care of his ailing mother therefore he is not sustainable in view of the fact that, "it is not only the legal and statutory obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor children but is also his social and economic liability to maintain them."

Justice Puri said that so far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned,  the argument that the husband cannot pay the aforesaid amount cannot be accepted.

"The facts and circumstances of the present case suggest that as per the impugned order...wife is not working and she is having the care and custody of two minor children, who are stated to be of the age of 8 years and 6 years respectively and they must have started going to school as well, therefore, the total amount of 24,700/- per month cannot be said to be on the higher side by any stretch of imagination considering the inflationary tendencies and the costs in ratio as of today in India," added the judge.

The Court opined that the mere fact that the petitioner has other liabilities also cannot become a ground for denial of maintenance to the wife and to the children to which they are otherwise legally entitled.

In the light of the above, the bench said, "the aforesaid amount of 24,700/- per month to the respondents is neither excessive nor is erroneous."

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Raman Kaswan for the petitioner

Title: XXXX v. XXXXX