Husband Legally Obligated to Support Wife If Healthy and Capable: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that if a husband is healthy, able-bodied, and capable of earning, he is under a legal obligation to provide maintenance to his wife. The court dismissed excuses such as unemployment or lack of business opportunities, stating that they are not legally acceptable reasons to avoid supporting one’s spouse.
Court Rejects Husband’s Excuses in Maintenance Case
The ruling came in response to a revision petition challenging a Family Court’s order directing the petitioner (husband) to pay Rs. 2,200 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The wife had filed a case stating that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to physical and mental abuse. The trial court ruled in her favor, prompting the husband to challenge the decision.
Justice Malasri Nandi, while hearing the case, reiterated that financial instability does not absolve a husband of his duty to provide maintenance. The court emphasized that a person with no visible means of income cannot escape liability, as per legal precedents set by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Durga Singh Lodhi vs. Prembai & Others (1990) and the Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan.
Court’s Observations on Legal Maintenance Obligations
- Section 125 CrPC states that a wife is entitled to maintenance if her husband, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to provide for her.
- Claims of lack of employment or financial instability are not valid legal defenses.
- A wife forced to leave her marital home due to harassment or cruelty is entitled to financial support.
- Maintenance must be adequate to allow the wife to live with dignity, similar to the standard she had in her husband’s home.
Legal Precedents Supporting the Ruling
The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, stating:
“A woman forced to leave her marital home should not feel abandoned or destitute. She is entitled to live a dignified life similar to what she had in her husband’s home. The husband’s financial status and social standing are crucial factors in determining maintenance.”
Additionally, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Durga Singh Lodhi vs. Prembai emphasized:
“Even if a husband has no visible source of income, he must still provide maintenance. An able-bodied person must find a way to support his wife.”
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed
The Gauhati High Court found no merit in the husband’s arguments and upheld the Family Court’s order. The court ruled that since the husband was healthy and capable of earning, he could not evade his legal responsibility. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces the legal duty of husbands to provide for their wives if they are financially capable. It also sets a strong precedent against using unemployment as an excuse to avoid paying maintenance. The judgment ensures that wives are not left financially vulnerable after leaving their marital homes due to abuse or neglect.
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==
