The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dismissing a revision plea of a man (husband) challenging the order of family court wherein interim maintenance has been granted to his wife (respondent), has said that “even if the wife is earning, the husband is legally and morally bound to maintain her”.
The petitioner had filed the revision petition challenging the order dated December 7, 2018 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Moga, wherein, interim maintenance of Rs 3,500 per month has been granted to respondent number 1 (wife) and Rs 1,500 per month to respondent number 2 (minor daughter).
As per petitioner, he got married on April 29, 2017 and their daughter was born in March 2018 and was living with the mother. He said that due to quarrelsome nature of his wife, they started living separately.
The petitioner has further submitted that his wife is M.A. B.Ed. and posted as a teacher and hence, getting handsome salary. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is posted as an instructor under the Welfare Scheme, but due to Covid, he is not getting his salary since February, 2021, uptil now and he is totally dependent on his father. He has also submitted that being fed up by the act and conduct of his wife, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce. He further submits that the learned family court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and, thus, arrived at an erroneous conclusion in granting interim maintenance of Rs 3,500 per month to his wife and Rs 1,500 to his minor daughter.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj said, “In view of the plethora of the judicial pronouncements by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is well settled law that even if the wife is earning, the husband is legally and morally bound to maintain her.”
“The maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the vagrancy. The wife is equally entitled for living standard which she was enjoying while living with her husband. The husband is an able-bodied man and hence, he cannot wriggle out of the responsibility he is legally bound to discharge,” added Justice Bhardwaj.