The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that a husband's financial difficulties do not absolve him of his legal obligation to provide maintenance for his wife during matrimonial disputes.
Key Points
- Allahabad High Court rules a husband cannot escape the legal responsibility of maintaining his wife due to financial hardship.
- The court rejected a husband's plea challenging a family court order to pay interim maintenance to his wife during a matrimonial dispute.
- The High Court stated that marriage legally binds a man to maintain his wife.
- The court considered the wife's claim of having no independent income and the burden of maintaining her children.
- The court deemed the interim maintenance amount of Rs 4,000 as reasonable considering the current cost of living.
The Allahabad High Court has held that a man cannot escape the responsibility of maintaining his wife due to financial hardship, observing that one who believes he cannot maintain should not get married in the first place.
A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran rejected a plea filed by a husband challenging a family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife during the pendency of a matrimonial dispute case.
Legal Obligation of Husband Towards Wife
"Once a man marries a woman, he is bound under the law to maintain her," the bench said.
In the present case, the family court had directed the appellant-husband, Tej Bahadur Maurya, to pay Rs 4,000 as interim maintenance to his wife.
The husband moved the high court arguing that the family court did not take his financial condition into account while passing the impugned order.
Arguments and Court's Consideration
He further said that the family court overlooked the fact that the wife is living with another man and that there was a mutual separation between the parties through an affidavit.
The bench noted that the family court had properly considered these allegations.
The high court took into account the claim of the respondent-wife that she has to bear the burden of maintaining her children and she is without any source of independent income.
Court's Final Decision
After going through the record, the bench in its order passed on April 7 opined that keeping in view the cost of living today, it cannot be said that the amount is excessive and unaffordable for the appellant.
The high court also refused to accept the appellant's argument that he is only a labourer as no further information relating to the same had been given to this court.
