Not penury, not luxury: Punjab and Haryana High Court says maintenance must be realistic

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that maintenance must be “justifiable and realistic”—neither so meagre as to reduce the dependent spouse to penury nor so excessive as to confer an extravagant allowance. At the same time, the Bench made it clear that a husband cannot escape liability on the ground that his wife is active on social media or living a decent life at her parental home.

Dismissing a man’s plea against a Nuh family court order, Justice Kirti Singh said the court duly noted that "simply because the wife was active on social media and is leading a decent life at her parental home, that would not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his wife and child.” Laying down the principle of equi-status, Justice Kirti Singh asserted rival claimants in maintenance disputes were obliged to make full and fair disclosures of their actual earning capacities. “The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities for the court to arrive at a quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of the principle of equi-status,” the Bench observed.

The judge added that “the quantum of maintenance must be justifiable and realistic to provide succour to the dependent spouse and also to avoid the occurrence of the two extremes of the maintenance being either paltry or extravagant, ensuring that neither of the two is reduced to a life of penury. The adequacy of the maintenance allowance has to be determined by the yardstick of the dependent spouse and children being able to lead a life of reasonable comfort.”

The ruling came on a petition filed by a man aggrieved by the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nuh, directing him to monthly pay Rs 7,000 as maintenance to his wife and Rs 3,000 to their minor son. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the family court had wrongly allowed maintenance to the respondents, and that too on the higher side. It was submitted that the wife had left the matrimonial home with the minor son without any just cause. She was well-qualified, holding the degrees of MA and BEd and was working.

Referring to her social media presence, he submitted that a glance at her Instagram account would reveal she had over 1.27 lakh followers and was earning well from the platform, besides maintaining a good standard of living. By contrast, the petitioner claimed to be unemployed, with no fixed source of income except occasional tuition classes for students of Classes 10 to 12, that too only during examination season. On these grounds, it was submitted that the wife and child were not entitled to any further maintenance.

Justice Kirti Singh, however, rejected the submissions and observed that the minor child’s custody was with the mother. The court reiterated that a wife could not be denied maintenance solely on the ground that she was well qualified. Educational qualifications alone could not be equated with financial capacity or independence, particularly when the wife was burdened with childcare responsibilities.

Holding that the order of the family court was based on a correct appreciation of facts and settled principles of law, the Bench found no infirmity or perversity warranting interference. The petitioner’s plea was dismissed as being “bereft of merit.”