In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court declared that a healthy and able-bodied husband is legally required to provide financial support to his wife. The court emphasized that excuses such as unemployment or lack of business opportunities are not valid reasons to avoid paying maintenance.
Court Ruling on Maintenance
The court made this observation while reviewing a Revision Petition challenging a Family Court’s decision that ordered a husband to pay his wife Rs. 2,200 per month under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice Malasri Nandi, leading the bench, highlighted that a husband is legally obligated to support his wife if he has the means to do so but neglects or refuses to maintain her.
Legal Responsibilities of a Husband
The ruling is clear: a husband cannot avoid his financial responsibilities towards his wife by citing a lack of job or income. The court emphasized that being able-bodied and healthy places the responsibility on the husband to find ways to support his spouse. “These are bald excuses with no acceptability in law,” the court noted.
Case Background
The respondent (wife) filed a case under Section 125 CrPC, alleging that her husband had subjected her to physical and mental abuse, forcing her to leave the marital home. The trial court ruled in her favor, granting her maintenance. Dissatisfied, the husband filed a revision petition, challenging the maintenance order.
Court’s Interpretation of Section 125 CrPC
The court further explained that under Section 125 CrPC, a wife is entitled to maintenance if her husband intentionally neglects his duty to support her. However, if a wife leaves her matrimonial home without just cause, she cannot claim maintenance.
Previous Court Rulings Cited
The court referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Durga Singh Lodhi vs. Prembai (1990), which stated that a person cannot escape the obligation to pay maintenance even if they lack visible means or property. A healthy person is expected to earn and fulfill this responsibility.
The court also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, where it was noted that a wife who is forced to leave her marital home is entitled to live with dignity, similar to how she would have lived in her husband’s house.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, ruling that the husband is obligated to support his wife. The petition was dismissed, confirming that financial responsibility cannot be evaded by citing unemployment or other excuses.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
