According to the punjab & haryana High court, the husband must generate additional money in order to support his wife and kids if he is unable to pay the maintenance amount. On the grounds that he had other obligations that prevented him from paying the ₹24,700 maintenance order for his wife and two young children, the court rejected the husband's appeal.
According to Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, "If the petitioner is unable to make the sum above, it is his responsibility to make more money, and once he does, he must support his wife and children in accordance with the law." Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner's position that he is unable to pay the aforementioned amount due to other obligations cannot be accepted and is thus denied.
After getting married in 2014, the couple had two unwed children. In the husband's situation, the wife left his society without giving any justification, and they have been living apart for over five years. The spouse further stated that, according to his september 2024 pay stub, he earns Rs. 57,606 per month as a Senior Male Nurse at the SMS Hospital in Jaipur.
Given that he must also care for his elderly mother and has other obligations, including EMIs on the loan he took out, he argued that the maintenance, which is about half of his monthly earnings, should be paid. He added that although his wife works as a teacher as well, no documentation was presented to the Family court when the case for an interim maintenance award was being considered.
After hearing the arguments, the court rejected the claim that the husband is unsustainable because he must care for his ailing mother and has other obligations. This was due to 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." According to Justice Puri, the claim that the spouse is unable to pay the specified amount cannot be accepted regarding the amount of maintenance.
"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," said the judge.
According to the court, the petitioner's other obligations cannot be used as an excuse to deny the wife and children the maintenance to which they would otherwise be legally entitled. "The aforementioned amount of 24,700/- per month to the respondents is neither excessive nor is erroneous," the bench stated in light of the aforementioned. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
According to Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, "If the petitioner is unable to make the sum above, it is his responsibility to make more money, and once he does, he must support his wife and children in accordance with the law." Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner's position that he is unable to pay the aforementioned amount due to other obligations cannot be accepted and is thus denied.
After getting married in 2014, the couple had two unwed children. In the husband's situation, the wife left his society without giving any justification, and they have been living apart for over five years. The spouse further stated that, according to his september 2024 pay stub, he earns Rs. 57,606 per month as a Senior Male Nurse at the SMS Hospital in Jaipur.
Given that he must also care for his elderly mother and has other obligations, including EMIs on the loan he took out, he argued that the maintenance, which is about half of his monthly earnings, should be paid. He added that although his wife works as a teacher as well, no documentation was presented to the Family court when the case for an interim maintenance award was being considered.
After hearing the arguments, the court rejected the claim that the husband is unsustainable because he must care for his ailing mother and has other obligations. This was due to 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." According to Justice Puri, the claim that the spouse is unable to pay the specified amount cannot be accepted regarding the amount of maintenance.
"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," said the judge.
According to the court, the petitioner's other obligations cannot be used as an excuse to deny the wife and children the maintenance to which they would otherwise be legally entitled. "The aforementioned amount of 24,700/- per month to the respondents is neither excessive nor is erroneous," the bench stated in light of the aforementioned. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel