Taking care of family man’s moral obligation, can’t shirk it: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 2

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that taking care of a family was a man’s moral responsibility. He could not shirk it. The court also made it clear that a wife’s financial status for the purpose of granting maintenance was required to be determined on the date of filing the plea for the purpose.

The ruling by Justice Suvir Sehgal came on a bunch of two petitions filed by an estranged couple against an order passed on August 18 last year by a family court, directing the husband to pay an interim monthly maintenance of Rs5,000 to “each of the claimants”. The husband was seeking the setting aside of the order, while the wife prayed for modification and enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the court below.

Justice Sehgal took note of the husband’s contention that the wife was getting a monthly salary of Rs26, 650 from a private school, but the certificates appended with his petition pertained to 2014. The bank statement was of 2016. “The financial status of the wife has to be determined on the date when the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed. However, there is nothing on record to show that she continues to draw the same salary as claimed by the husband,” Justice Sehgal observed.

Justice Sehgal asserted that the court could safely assume that the husband was a man of means and had sufficient income to support his wife and daughters. “Even otherwise, it is the moral obligation of a man to take care of his family and he cannot shirk it. This court is of the view that award of interim maintenance of Rs5, 000 per month for each of the claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive,” Justice Sehgal asserted.

Justice Sehgal said it deserved to be noticed that thecourt, vide an order dated September 9, 2021, had directed the husband to file an affidavit on clearing the arrears of maintenance. However, he failed to do so. As such, there was “no equity in his favour”. Dismissing the petitions, Justice Sehgal said the court was of the opinion that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the family court, which called for interference in the matter.

The case

The ruling by Justice Suvir Sehgal came on a bunch of two petitions filed by an estranged couple against an order passed on August 18 last year by a family court, directing the husband to pay an interim monthly maintenance of Rs5, 000 to “each of the claimants”. The husband was seeking the setting aside of the order, while the wife prayed for modification and enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the court below.