Unemployment, Poor Business, Loan Repayments Can't Justify Failure To Pay Wife's Maintenance: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a husband's financial constraints, lack of employment, poor business performance or outstanding loans cannot be used as an escape route to avoid his obligation to pay maintenance to his wife, including a divorced wife.
The Court observed that the wife's right to maintenance cannot be sacrificed on account of financial difficulties arising from asset construction, business liabilities or repayment of loans.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Plea of the husband that he does not have the means to pay... due to financial constraints... cannot be permitted to be an escape route for the husband to avoid payability of maintenance to the wife, including divorced wife. The absolute right of the wife for maintenance cannot be sacrificed and subrogated for financial constraints, arising due to the asset construction or business etc.”
Background:
Savitri Devi, who married Surjeet in 1997 and had three children with him, alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was forced to leave the matrimonial home in 2009. She filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, claiming that she had no independent source of income.
The Family Court, Hamirpur awarded her ₹4,000 per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, after assessing the husband's monthly income at ₹11,250. The marriage was subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce in 2021. The husband challenged the maintenance order before the High Court, contending, among other things, that the divorced wife was not entitled to maintenance and that he lacked the financial capacity to pay.
The Court held that a divorced woman continues to be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC so long as she has not remarried. Divorce by itself does not extinguish her right to claim maintenance.
The Court rejected the husband's contention that the wife was earning sufficiently to maintain herself, noting that he had failed to produce any evidence establishing her income. It observed that mere conjectures, surmises or a presumption that the wife was earning could not constitute a basis for denying maintenance.
The Court further held that the wife's decision to live separately was justified by the established acts of physical and mental cruelty. The divorce proceedings had recorded findings of abuse, beatings and denial of basic necessities, which constituted sufficient reason for her not to live with the husband.
Rejecting the husband's plea of financial hardship, the Court held that lack of employment, poor business performance, repayment of loans or other financial constraints cannot be used as an escape route from the obligation to pay maintenance. The wife's right to maintenance cannot be sacrificed on account of such financial difficulties.
The Court also upheld the maintenance of ₹4,000 per month, observing that the Family Court had assessed the husband's monthly income at ₹11,250 based on the applicable minimum-wage notification. The amount was found to be fair, just and reasonable, keeping in view the husband's earning capacity and the wife's reasonable needs.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Family Court's order. It directed the husband to release the maintenance amount to the wife within four weeks, subject to adjustment of any amount received by her under other proceedings.
Case Name: S v/s S
Case No.: Cr. Revision [FC] No.19 of 2024
Date of Decision: 10.08.2026