Husband Bound To Maintain Wife Despite Lack Of Income, He Can Earn ₹350-400 Per Day As An Unskilled Worker: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805 wherein it was held that a husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.

Essentially, the single judge was dealing with a criminal revision plea filed by a husband u/S 19(4) Family Court Act challenging an order passed by a Family Court in Unnao u/S 125 CrPC directing him to pay Rs. 2K per month to the opposite party nos.2/wife from the date of application as maintenance.

It was the case of the revisionist husband that he married the opposite party No. 2 in May 2015, and after only four days of living together in their matrimonial home, she returned to her parental home and despite his numerous attempts to reconcile, his wife refused to return.

It was his further case that while his suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights was pending, his wife filed a Section 125 CrPC application seeking maintenance from him and the same was allowed by the family court without taking into account the fact that she had voluntarily left her in-laws' house without a valid reason and had been residing at her parental home since January 2016.

He also submitted that he is working as a labourer, lives in a rented, is seriously ill and is under treatment of a doctor, and that his wife is a graduate she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself.

On the other hand, it was the case of his wife that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to cruelty inflicted upon her for dowry. She also argued that the revisionist/husband owns agricultural land, works in a factory with a monthly salary of Rs.10,000, and generates an additional monthly income of about Rs.50,000 from his salary, milk products business, and agricultural land.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that the family court, after perusal of documentary evidence regarding the medical treatment of the husband, found that he was not suffering from any serious illness.

The Court also opined that though his wife did not adduce any evidence that the revisionist-husband was working in a salt factory or ran a Maruti Van on rent, however, the Court added, there was clear evidence on the record that the revisionist was a healthy man and was capable of earning money and is liable to maintain his wife.

“For the sake of argument, if the court presumed that revisionist has no income from his job or from rent of Maruti Van, even then revisionist is duty bound to provide maintenance to his wife, as is held Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 and if he engaged himself in labour work also too then also he may earned as a un-skilled labour about Rs.350/- to Rs.400/- per day as a minimum wages,” the Court further remarked.

The Court also noted that no evidence was produced during the trial by the revisionist that his wife was living in adultery which would disentitle her to maintenance.

Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed his revision plea while upholding the family court's order wherein he was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of application and the maintenance arrears are directed to be paid in five easy quarterly equal instalments.

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist: Arjun Singh Somvanshi

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Salma Bano, Shresth Agarwal

Case title - Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46

Click Here To Read/Download Order