The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband seeking to avoid maintenance payments by claiming he is willing to live with his wife must demonstrate “genuine concern and responsibility,” rather than offering a mere formal statement to the court.
Justice Garima Prashad made these observations in an order dated April 27, while dismissing a revision plea filed by a man challenging a lower court’s directive to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter.
The legal dispute follows a marriage solemnized in 2012 under Muslim Personal Law, which resulted in the birth of a daughter. The wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands before eventually being expelled from her matrimonial home alongside her child.
Claiming she lacked an independent source of income, she approached a family court, which subsequently ordered the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month to his wife and ₹2,000 per month to their minor daughter.
The husband challenged this order, arguing that his wife had left without sufficient cause and asserting that he was ready to take her back. He further claimed financial hardship, stating he earned only ₹250 per day as a stabilizer repair mechanic, while alleging his wife earned ₹50,000 per month through tuition and beauty parlor work.
The High Court found the husband’s arguments unconvincing. Justice Prashad noted that the husband failed to substantiate his low income or prove his wife’s alleged earnings. Conversely, the wife provided municipal tax assessment records, sale deeds, and civil suit pleadings suggesting the husband and his family were involved in a substantial electronics business.
“A bald allegation of earning, without proof, cannot defeat a claim for maintenance,” the Court remarked, noting that the husband had failed to disclose his true financial capacity.
The Court also criticized the husband’s conduct during the proceedings. Despite seeking mediation, the man failed to deposit the directed amount to initiate the process. The bench viewed this as evidence that his plea of “willingness” to reunite was a defensive maneuver to defeat the maintenance claim rather than a sincere effort to fulfill matrimonial obligations.
Reiterating the purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court emphasized that maintenance is a measure of social justice designed to prevent destitution.
“Once the Family Court has found that the wife is living separately for sufficient reasons, has no independent income, and the husband has sufficient earning capacity, the order of maintenance cannot be interfered with merely on the basis of self-serving assertions of poverty,” Justice Prashad observed.
The High Court described the total monthly award of ₹7,000 as “modest,” citing current living costs and educational expenses. It further noted that the family court had already balanced the husband’s interests by allowing him to pay arrears in five quarterly installments. Finding no “perversity or illegality” in the original order, the High Court dismissed the husband’s plea.
