‘Maintenance no charity’: Allahabad High Court upholds Rs 20,000 a month to wife

“It is the moral duty and social responsibility of husband to maintain his wife and minor child. The husband’s duty to maintain his wife and minor child is not only a matter of legal obligation, but also social and moral responsibility, and this assumes greater importance where the wife does not have a source of income of her own…The right to maintenance is not a matter of charity, but a statutory right flowing from marital point and parental duty,” the court said on

The case concerned a couple who married on July 24, 2017, according to Hindu customs. The wife’s case, as recorded in the order, was that she had been living at her parental home since April 2, 2018, after alleging harassment and cruelty over demands for additional dowry.

Justice Achal Sachdev said the husband’s duty to maintain his wife is a “social and moral responsibility” rooted in the status of marriage. (Image generated using AI)

Alleged dowry demands, assault

The wife alleged that her husband and his family demanded a Swift car and a 100-square-yard plot as additional dowry and subjected her to harassment and assault. She alleged that she was assaulted and confined on March 30, 2018, informed police on April 2 and was made to write an apology before being released.

She claimed she had no independent income, depended on her father and was not provided maintenance. She also alleged that her husband, a software engineer earning around Rs 70,000 a month, had sufficient financial resources and sought Rs 30,000 monthly maintenance. These were her allegations, not independent findings of the high court.

The high court noted that the marriage was undisputed and upheld the family court’s finding that the wife had sufficient reason to live separately. It also agreed that the husband was not maintaining her according to his status, based on documents before the trial court. When the revision was heard, the man’s counsel was absent, while counsel for the wife and the state were present.

The court proceeded with the hearing in his absence. Justice Sachdev also referred to Supreme Court rulings in Bhuvan Mohan Singh v Meena and Chaturbhuj v Sitabai, noting that maintenance is a measure of social justice aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution.

Maintenance not bounty

• Maintenance is not a bounty, but a right, and its denial would compel the wife to lead a life of destitution which the law cannot countenance.
• The husband being a natural guardian and provider carries a social as well as moral responsibility to ensure that the wife and child are not reduced to penury.
• Marriage creates a moral point of care and protection, and the husband is morally obliged to safeguard the dignity and well-being of his wife and provide for the minor child.
• It is a fundamental duty rooted in love, compassion and responsibility, and even beyond the law and custom, it is a matter of conscience to prevent suffering of those who are dependent on him.
• Her husband’s support sustains the family unit, ensuring that the wife and children are not marginalised or forced into poverty, and society views the husband as the provider; neglecting this role often leads to social disapproval and stigma.
• The obligation is rooted not merely in statutory command, but in the conscience of society for undermining the neglect of both familial, statutory and social order.

The high court found the family court’s order “very well reasoned and justified”, noting that the wife had no source of income while the husband had sufficient means to maintain her. The court therefore found no reason to interfere with the March 30, 2024 order and dismissed the criminal revision.