Obligations Toward Parents, Siblings Do Not Absolve Husband Of Primary Duty To Maintain Wife: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's familial obligations towards his parents and siblings do not absolve him of his primary responsibility to maintain his legally wedded wife.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar stated thus while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a railway employee who had challenged the order of enhancement of maintenance awarded to his wife and minor son.
Briefly, a Family Court in Etawah increased the monthly maintenance payable to the revisionist's wife from Rs 3,500 to Rs 8,000. It also increased the maintenance for their minor son from Rs 1,500 to Rs 4,000 per month.
Challenging this, the husband argued before the High Court that the order was erroneous, arbitrary and excessive. He contended that as a Group-D Railway Keyman, he is earning approximately Rs 55,000 per month and apart from meeting his own day-to-day expenses, he is also under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his aged parents.
It was further urged that the revisionist is also required to provide financial support to his unmarried brothers and sisters, thereby imposing an additional financial burden on him. He argued that the increased amount was disproportionate and beyond his means.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court observed that the Family Court exercised its discretion judiciously after considering the husband's income, the status of the parties and the requirements of the respondents.
The Court noted that an income of Rs 55,000 per month cannot be considered so meagre as to render the husband incapable of complying with the enhanced maintenance order.
Justice Diwakar further added that merely because the revisionist has certain familial obligations would not absolve him of his primary responsibility to maintain his legally wedded wife
The Court stressed that maintenance provisions are social welfare measures intended to ensure a wife can maintain herself with dignity in a manner commensurate with the financial capacity and status of the husband.
Further, noting that its revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope, the bench found no infirmity or illegality in the Family Court's decision and thus, it dismissed the revision petition.
Case title - Ajay Verman vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 166
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 166