'Don’t Marry If You Can’t Maintain Your Wife': Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea

New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a man cannot escape his legal obligation to support his wife by alleging financial hardship, and that individuals who are unable to support a family should contemplate marriage entirely.   

‘Bound Under the Law to Maintain Wife’

A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran made the statement while dismissing a husband's appeal against a maintenance decision. 

"Once a man marries a woman, he is bound under the law to maintain her," the High Court stressed, adding, “Such of those who feel that they cannot maintain a wife and children if the marriage goes sour, ought not to get married in the first place at all, but having done so, they cannot fall back on their poor financial condition to escape the responsibility of maintaining their wives during the course of the trial.” 

Appeal Against Interim Maintenance Rejected

The case arose after a family court instructed the appellant-husband, Tej Bahadur Maurya, to pay ₹4,000 as interim maintenance to his wife during the pendency of a matrimonial dispute. The husband challenged this order, claiming that his financial situation had not been fully examined.

He further alleged that his wife was living with another man and that both parties had mutually separated through an affidavit.

Court Finds No Fault in Trial Court Order

After analyzing the case, the High Court observed that the family court had already taken these charges into consideration. It noted that the trial court relied on the wife's statement, in which she described the allegations against her as untrue, contrived, and meant to defame her.

Regarding the joint affidavit, the bench noted the wife's claim that it was obtained by deception because she is uneducated.

The Court also noted the wife's assertion that she has no independent source of income and is solely responsible for her children's upbringing.

Considering the present cost of living, the bench determined that the amount awarded was not excessive or expensive for the husband. It also rejected his claim to be a labourer, noting that no supporting documentation was given. The High Court dismissed the appeal after finding no significant defect in the family court's order.