 "Husband must look to earn more if maintenance to wife is unaffordable: HC")
Asserting that it is the husband's duty to maintain his wife and children, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that if he cannot afford the maintenance amount, he must find ways to earn more, LiveLaw reported on Wednesday.
The court made this observation while hearing a petition by a husband challenging the Family Court's order to provide ₹24,700 maintenance for his wife and two children, the report added.
The plea argued that he is unable to afford the amount because of his other liabilities and has to look after his ailing mother.
"In case the petitioner is not able to earn the aforesaid amount, then it is rather his duty to earn more and after earning more, he has to maintain his children and wife under the provisions of law," Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, as quoted by LiveLaw.
He further added that the argument made by the petitioner about other liabilities cannot be accepted.
What's the case?
According to LiveLaw, the couple was married in 2014, but the husband claimed that his wife has been living separately for the last five years. He further added that he is a senior male nurse in a hospital in Jaipur and earns ₹57,606 per month.
He said that the maintenance amount is almost half of his monthly income, and he also has to pay loan EMIs and look after his ailing mother. He also submitted that the wife is working as a teacher, however, no documents about the same were submitted in the family court at the time of the hearing, the report added.
What else did the court say?
The court, however, rejected his petition, stating that his arguments are not acceptable because "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," reported LiveLaw.
The judge also noted that the wife is not working as per the impugned order and is taking care of their two young children.
"...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," the judge said, as quoted by LiveLaw.