Husbands can’t play poor to avoid maintenance: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a husband cannot escape his legal obligation to pay maintenance by falsely portraying himself as non-earning or financially dependent on his parents.

Advertisement

The assertion came as Justice Namit Kumar noted the emergence of a “trend” where husbands resort to such “subtle and clever tricks” to defeat legitimate maintenance claims before holding that the courts “cannot close their eyes” to such conduct.

“It has nowadays become a trend as and when an application for maintenance is filed, husband starts portraying himself to be non-earning or of poor status, displaying himself to be totally dependent upon his parents, or even if he has been living with his parents till now, he is no more residing with family members if they have a good business and movable and immovable properties in order to avoid payment of maintenance. So in such kind of eventuality, the court cannot -- under these circumstances -- close its eyes, when other party is trying to play tricks in a subtle and clever manner,” Justice Namit Kumar asserted.

The observations came as Justice Namit Kumar dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala, directing him to pay Rs 7,000 per month to his estranged wife as interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The amount was to be paid from the date of the maintenance application until the final decision in the main petition.

Holding that the Family Court’s decision was “well-considered” and based on material on record, the Bench declined to interfere with the order, observing that no perversity had been shown. The husband, Justice Namit Kumar noted, was initially been working with his father, a goldsmith, but claimed unemployment after matrimonial discord arose.

“This court is of the view that at the time of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, father of the petitioner -- being a goldsmith -- was running his shop and the petitioner was working with him. But when the dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent, he suddenly became unemployed and now he is not working with his father anymore,” Justice Namit Kumar recorded.

Elaborating on the object of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, Justice Namit Kumar noted that its purpose was to ensure that a dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to a failed marriage. However, the provision must not be allowed to become “a weapon to punish the other spouse”. The court emphasised the need for courts to maintain a “careful and just balance” while awarding maintenance, one that ensures social justice to the dependent spouse while avoiding arbitrary awards.

Referring to the general tendency in such disputes, Justice Namit Kumar observed: “There is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities.”

The court added that the quantum of maintenance must be “justifiable and realistic… to provide succour to the dependent spouse” and “avoid occurrence of the two extremes -- of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant”. The measure of adequacy was whether the dependent spouse could live with “reasonable comfort”.

Justice Namit Kumar also cited a previous ruling where it was held that “even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that he has become a ‘sadhu’, that does not absolve him from the duty to maintain his wife and children”.