Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dismissing a plea of a husband challenging the maintenance amount decided by a lower court, said that even if a husband is a professional beggar, he has the moral and legal liability to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself.

Justice HS Madaan was hearing a plea of a husband who had challenged a lower court order directing him to pay an amount of Rs 5,000 maintenance per month to his wife who is fighting divorce case against her husband. The wife, after filing the divorce case in a court, had also filed a plea under the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance from her husband of Rs 15,000 per month as well as litigation expenses of Rs 11,000.

The lower court however, had ordered the husband to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his wife as maintenance and lump sum of Rs 5,500 towards the litigation expenses.

Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the husband had challenged the decision in the High Court.

Hearing the matter, Justice Madan observed that the husband is an able-bodied person and even a labourer manages to earn Rs 500 per day and the amount decided by the lower court was not excessive in view of the rising prices of basic needs.

“Husband is an able-bodied person and nowadays, even a manual labourer manages to earn Rs.500/- or more per day…keeping in view the trend of rising prices and that things of basic needs are getting very costly, the maintenance awarded cant be said to be on the higher side,” Justice Madan observed.

The High Court, while dismissing the husband’s plea further observed that it was a moral and legal liability of a husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself.

“Of course a husband has got a moral and legal liability to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself, even if he is a professional begger. The respondent/husband could not establish on record that petitioner wife (herein respondent) has got any means of earning or is possessed of sufficient property,” the High Court said while dismissing the husband’s plea challenging the maintenance order and asked him to pay the maintenance as ordered by the lower court.