Husband duty-bound to maintain wife even if he has no income: Allahabad High Court

A husband is duty-bound to provide maintenance to his wife even if he has no income from his job, opined Allahabad High Court recently [Kamal v State].

The Court added that even if it is assumed that the husband is only doing unskilled labour work, he could earn ₹350-400 daily as minimum wages and maintain his wife.

Justice Renu Agarwal made the observation while rejecting a revision plea filed by a man challenging a family court order that had ordered him to pay ₹2,000 as monthly maintenance to his estranged wife. The man had claimed that he did not have sufficient income to pay the maintenance amount.

“For the sake of argument, if the court presumed that revisionist (husband) has no income from his job or from rent of Maruti Van, even then revisionist is duty bound to provide maintenance to his wife, as is held Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 and if he engaged himself in labour work also too then also he may earned as a un-skilled labour about Rs.350/- to Rs.400/- per day as a minimum wages,” the Court opined while rejecting the man's petition.

The High Court made the observation while relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Anju Garg v, Deepak Kumar Garg, in which the top court emphasized that a husband is obligated to maintain his wife, even if he has to engage in physical labor.

"It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute," the Supreme Court had observed in Anju Garg's case

The High Court was prompted to reiterate this position while hearing a husband's petition challenging a family court order to pay maintenance under Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioner before the High Court had got married to his wife in 2015. However, their cohabitation lasted only for a few days in their matrimonial home, after which the wife returned to her parental home.

It was claimed that despite the husband's numerous attempts at reconciliation, the wife consistently refused to return.

The husband later filed a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter, his wife filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The family court allowed the wife's application and ordered the husband to pay ₹2,000 as maintenance per month.

The husband questioned the correctness of this decision by the family court. His counsel argued that the family court did not consider the fact that the wife had voluntarily left her matrimonial house without a valid reason and had been residing at her parental home since January 2016.

He also informed that he was employed as a laborer, that he resided in rented accommodation, and was dealing with a severe illness.

Moreover, he stated that his wife, being a graduate, earns an ample income to sustain herself.

The wife's counsel countered that she had left her matrimonial home due to dowry demands and that the man earned around ₹50,000 a month from his job, a milk business and from agricultural land.

The Court observed that there was little evidence to support the husband's claim that he was afflicted with a severe illness.

The Court went on to conclude that the husband was physically fit and financially able to fulfill his obligation to maintain his wife.

The Court also observed that the husband had failed to present any evidence during the trial to support his claim that his wife was engaged in adultery, which could have potentially disqualified her from claiming maintenance.

"Moreover, if the revisionist (husband) wants to show that opposite party no.2 is living in adultery he has an opportunity to move application under section 127 Cr.P.C. for adequate relief," the Court added.

With these observations, the Court dismissed the husband's plea and upheld the family court verdict.

Advocate Arjun Singh Somvanshi represented the husband.

Government Advocate Salma Bano and advocate Shresth Agarwal represented the respondents (State and the wife).

[Read Order]