The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife by pleading that he has no job or that his business is not doing well when he is capable of earning.

A bench of Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that such pleas are merely “bald excuses” and “have no acceptability in law”.

The Court made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging an order directing him to pay ₹3,500 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband had argued that his wife was living with her parents of her own will and without any reason. He also claimed that he had no permanent source of income and could not pay the maintenance amount.

He further alleged that the court wrongly assessed his income and granted maintenance from the date of the application without giving specific reasons.

Rejecting the plea regarding the husband's inability to pay, the High Court explained the purpose of Section 125 CrPC.

It observed that the provision is intended to ameliorate the financial condition, as well as the mental agony and anguish, suffered by a woman who is compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

The Court said that such a woman should have an acceptable arrangement to sustain herself and should be able to lead a life in a manner similar to that which she would have lived in her husband's home.

"A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband", the Court remarked.

The Court further held that maintenance has to be adequate to enable the wife to live with dignity and that she cannot be compelled to become a "destitute or a beggar".

In this context, the Court specifically addressed the argument frequently raised by husbands regarding their financial inability to pay maintenance. It observed thus:

"Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law".

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, observing that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs and the husband's capacity to pay, having regard to his reasonable expenses and other legal obligations.

The High Court further observed that maintenance for a wife is recognized as a measure of social justice.

It said that the husband cannot plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

"The obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises", the Court observed.

Regarding the plight of the woman forced to leave the matrimonial home, the Court observed thus:

"When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune".

Justice Upadhyay added that, at this stage, the only comfort the law can offer is that the husband must provide monetary support. "That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny", he said.

Furthermore, the bench noted that in the present case the trial court had found the husband had turned her wife on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands and that she was unable to maintain herself.

It therefore found the husband liable to provide her with financial support.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the ₹3,500 monthly maintenance as it found the same to be wholly justified The High Court thus dismissed the husband's criminal revision.