The Orissa High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband seeking to set aside a maintenance order, affirming that an able-bodied and educated husband is presumed capable of earning enough to support his wife. Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed that financial constraints cannot be used as a plea to avoid the legal obligation of maintenance as long as the husband possesses the physical and educational capacity to earn.
The matter reached the High Court after a husband challenged an order from a family court that directed him to pay ₹6,000 per month in maintenance to his wife. The petitioner husband, who holds an MBA degree and a Master’s in Engineering, argued that he currently has no source of income. He further contended that his wife, employed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector in Cuttack with a monthly salary of approximately ₹31,000, was not entitled to financial support from him.
The family court’s initial judgment in September 2024 had recorded that the husband had previously worked for reputed firms such as Wipro and Harman Company and also managed a variety store. The family court emphasized that it is the husband’s duty to ensure the wife’s welfare and maintain her at a standard of living at par with his own.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rita Singh submitted that the family court’s judgment was erroneous, claiming that the evidence regarding the husband’s income and the wife’s self-sufficiency was not appreciated in its proper perspective. The husband maintained that his lack of current employment should absolve him of the liability to pay the monthly sum of ₹6,000, which was ordered to be effective from January 2020.
On the other hand, the court noted that the husband failed to provide any “positive evidence” to deny his previous employment or demonstrate why he was currently unable to earn.
Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo highlighted the well-settled legal principle regarding the husband’s duty to maintain his family. The High Court noted:
“It is apparent that the present petitioner husband, being able-bodied, has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife; he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough.”
The court further remarked that the husband had not made any sincere effort before the family court to show “cogent grounds” for his inability to earn due to reasons beyond his control. Justice Sahoo reiterated that:
“It is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor children, and he cannot plead inability to maintain his wife due to financial constraint as long as he is able-bodied, educated or capable of earning.”
The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s observations in Shamima Farooqui, noting that arbitrary reductions in maintenance amounts without proper application of mind cannot be sustained.
Finding no legally permissible ground to accept the husband’s plea, the Orissa High Court dismissed the revision petition. The court upheld the family court’s order, confirming that the husband’s educational background (MBA and Engineering) and physical health make him liable for his wife’s maintenance regardless of his current claims of “no income.”
