In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that if a husband claims he cannot afford to pay the maintenance amount directed by the court, then it becomes his duty to earn more and fulfill his responsibility towards his wife and minor children.

The Court rejected a petition filed by a husband who challenged the Family Court’s interim maintenance order of ₹24,700 per month in favor of his wife and two children. He had contended that his financial liabilities made him incapable of affording the amount.

The couple had married in 2014, and two children were born from the marriage. The husband claimed that his wife had left his company without any valid reason and had been living separately for around five years.

He further submitted that he is employed as a Senior Male Nurse at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, drawing a monthly salary of ₹57,606 as per his September 2024 payslip. He argued that nearly half of his income was being claimed as maintenance, while he also had to support his ailing mother and manage other liabilities, including EMIs on loans.

Additionally, he alleged that his wife is working as a teacher, but conceded that no proof of her income was submitted before the Family Court when the interim maintenance was considered.

However, the High Court refused to accept these arguments, holding that personal liabilities could not outweigh the statutory and moral responsibility of maintaining one’s spouse and children.

On the matter of the amount being excessive, Justice Puri noted that the wife had custody of the children aged around 8 and 6 years, who were presumably attending school. Considering current living costs and inflation, the Court found ₹24,700 to be a reasonable amount.

The Court also made it clear that the existence of other liabilities cannot be accepted as a valid ground to deny legally entitled maintenance to the wife and children.

After hearing the submissions, the Court refused to consider the argument that the husband has other liabilities to pay and has to take care of his ailing mother therefore he is not sustainable in view of the fact that, “it is not only the legal and statutory obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor children but is also his social and economic liability to maintain them.”

Justice Puri said that so far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the argument that the husband cannot pay the aforesaid amount cannot be accepted.

“The facts and circumstances of the present case suggest that as per the impugned order…wife is not working and she is having the care and custody of two minor children, who are stated to be of the age of 8 years and 6 years respectively and they must have started going to school as well, therefore, the total amount of 24,700/- per month cannot be said to be on the higher side by any stretch of imagination considering the inflationary tendencies and the costs in ratio as of today in India,” added the judge.

The Court opined that the mere fact that the petitioner has other liabilities also cannot become a ground for denial of maintenance to the wife and to the children to which they are otherwise legally entitled.

In the light of the above, the bench said, “the aforesaid amount of 24,700/- per month to the respondents is neither excessive nor is erroneous.”

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.