Being A Student Doesn't Absolve Husband From Maintaining Wife: P&H High Court Denies Relief To 22 Y/O Engineering Student

"(husband) cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. Nor can he be absolved on the ground that he is a student. Pursuit of education notwithstanding, the legal obligation to maintain the wife is absolute arising from the existence of the relationship", a bench of Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed.

The single judge thus dismissed a revision petition filed by a 22-year-old electrical engineering student.

Briefly put, the husband-petitioner challenged an August 2025 order passed by a Family Court in Faridabad directing him to pay an interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month to his estranged wife.

Before the HC, it was submitted that the couple got married in June 2020 under compelling circumstances when the husband was only 16 years and 4 months old, while the wife was 25 years old. The couple had no children.

The husband later filed a petition for annulment of the marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in early 2023, after which the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance after 3 years of living separately.

He contended before the HC that he was a student and his family was entirely dependent on the ₹3,000 widow pension of his mother and that the wife had failed to prove that he was earning.

It was also argued that the wife was not destitute and was living with her parents and four brothers, who were all earning hands and hence, the award of ₹2,500/- per month deserved to be set aside.

At the outset, the bench noted that the legal provision for maintenance is not meant to punish a husband for his neglect; instead, it is a measure to prevent a destitute wife from being forced into a life of vagrancy and penury by speedily providing an allowance for food, shelter, and clothing.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015), the bench further noted that the inherent principle behind Section 125 CrPC is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

The High Court further noted that in this judgment, it was also observed that a husband's argument that he does not have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business is not doing well are only "bald excuses" and such arguments have no acceptability in law.

It was further noted that a healthy and able-bodied man who is in a position to support himself is under a legal obligation to support his wife, and her right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

Applying these principles, Justice Nagpal observed that the husband in the present case is healthy and does not suffer from any disability.

The High Court also noted that in this case, the Family Court had rightly ignored his affidavit claiming zero income, observing that even a daily wage labourer easily earns around ₹12,000 to ₹13,000 per month.

The High Court thus concluded that the husband must be taken to have the means to support his wife.

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the High Court noted the skyrocketing prices of essential commodities and the wife's reasonable wants.

The Court stated that the amount of ₹2,500 per month is barely sufficient for the wife's survival and found no ground to reduce it.

Consequently, his revision plea was dismissed.