Maintenance Obligations Should Not Burden A Husband: Jharkhand High Court

Jahanvi Agarwal

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court delved into the intricate matter of spousal maintenance, recognizing the husband’s moral responsibility to sustain his wife’s lifestyle akin to that of their matrimonial home. However, it firmly underscored that this duty should not transform the institution of marriage into a punitive burden for the husband.

While addressing a petition in a matrimonial dispute filed by a resident of Dhanbad seeking a revision of the maintenance amount awarded to his wife, the court made a compelling observation. It emphasized that while it’s indeed the husband’s moral obligation to provide maintenance, it should not be at the expense of making marriage a hardship for him.

A bench led by Justice Subhash Chand partially allowed the revision petition challenging the family court’s order, which had directed the petitioner to pay a monthly allowance of ₹40,000 to his wife.

The case unfolded after the couple’s marriage in 2018, conducted as per Hindu customs, resulting in separation due to domestic disputes. During the proceedings, it came to light that the wife had filed income tax returns for four years, despite claiming to have no income. The court acknowledged that even if the woman had an income, she was entitled to maintenance from her husband to maintain a living standard consistent with their matrimonial home.

The petitioner also informed the court of his responsibility to care for his ailing mother, which was not considered when the family court decided on the alimony amount. As a result, the court adjusted the alimony to ₹25,000 per month, aligning it with the specific circumstances of the case.

This ruling underscores the importance of determining a reasonable and practical maintenance amount, stressing the need for a delicate balance. The aim is to ensure that the maintenance granted to the wife is not overly burdensome for the husband or insufficient to sustain the wife’s financial well-being. In essence, it is a ruling that underscores the delicate equilibrium in matrimonial law.