The Himachal Pradesh High Court has revised upwards the monthly maintenance awarded to a woman after a legal battle spanning over 15 years, ruling that low and static financial support drives abandoned spouses into poverty. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma ordered a phased increase in monthly payments, incorporating a periodic raise to account for rising living costs.
Staggered Payment Plan
Under the modified August 22 order, the High Court fixed the maintenance at Rs 5,000 per month for the period between 2011 and 2016, increasing it to Rs 7,000 per month from 2016 to 2021, and further to Rs 9,000 per month from 2021 until April 2026. Beginning in April 2026, the amount will automatically increase by 5 percent every two years.
Origins Of The Dispute
The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging a family court ruling that had fixed her maintenance at a flat Rs 5,000 per month from the date her petition was filed in March 2011. The woman married the respondent in September 2009 according to Hindu rites, becoming his third wife following his two previous divorces.
According to her court submissions, she was subjected to harassment, dowry allegations, physical abuse, and severe restrictions on her movement within a month of marriage. She stated that persistent cruelty and mistreatment forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Represented by advocate Varun Chauhan, she informed the court that while she had no independent income, her husband had worked as a college lecturer and principal with a monthly earning of Rs 50,000.
Judicial Observations On Spousal Support
The High Court proceeded ex parte after the husband failed to participate in the appeal proceedings. Rejecting arguments regarding a lack of financial means, the bench highlighted that an able-bodied spouse capable of earning cannot evade the legal obligation to support a wife who is unable to maintain herself.
The bench emphasized that maintenance calculations must be realistic and factor in inflationary pressures to align with the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. The judges noted that inadequate and static support awards fail to protect vulnerable spouses from destitution and penury, making court intervention necessary to adjust long-pending claims appropriately.
