4 min readNew DelhiAug 25, 2026 10:34 AM IST
Observing that awarding a meagre, disproportionate amount of maintenance would only add to the wife’s woes, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has revised the maintenance payable to a woman, taking into account the more than 15-year pendency of her claim, inflationary costs of living, and the husband’s financial capacity.
The court revised the amount in stages, fixing it at Rs 5,000 per month from 2011 to 2016, Rs 7,000 from 2016 to 2021 and Rs 9,000 from 2021 to April 2026, with a 5 per cent enhancement every two years from April 2026.
Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma were hearing the plea filed by a woman who challenged the April 2009 order passed by the family court awarding a meagre maintenance amount of Rs 5,000 per month from the date of filing of the case in 2011. “Awarding meagre, unduly low, disproportionate and an illusory amount of maintenance shall definitely add to the woes of the wife, which needs to be remedied in instant proceedings,” the August 22 order said.
‘Third wife, treated as slave’
The woman claimed that she got married in September 2009 as per Hindu rites and customs and was the third wife of the respondent, who had divorced twice before. It was claimed that after about a month of their marriage, the family members, including the husband, behaved indifferently towards her, and she was tortured on various grounds, including allegations relating to dowry.
The woman claimed she was treated as a slave when living with her husband and was not allowed to move out of the house. She added that due to persistent acts of cruelty, torture, taunting and beatings, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home.
Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma stated that a meagre, illusory amount of maintenance could drive the wife to penury.
She added that her husband had served as a principal/lecturer in a college and had a monthly income of Rs 50,000, while she had no sufficient means of income and no independent source of income to run her daily life, and was hence unable to maintain herself.
Aggrieved, she moved the family court, which awarded her Rs 5,000 per month from the date of filing the maintenance plea in March 2011. She challenged this order before the high court. The woman was represented by advocate Varun Chauhan. The husband was proceeded against ex parte (without hearing his side) during the high court proceedings.
Story continues below this ad
‘Maintenance must be reasonable, realistic’
The court pointed out that the husband’s plea that he did not possess any source of income would not absolve him of his duty to maintain his wife when he is able-bodied and capable of earning. “The amount of maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, which should not be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury,” the court observed.
The high court noted that the husband was employed and had earnings from salary and other sources. However, the wife’s case was that due to cruelty and neglect, and the husband’s refusal to maintain her, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home.
“Awarding maintenance is to prevent the wife, who is unable to maintain herself, by leaving her to destiny to resign and to face destitution and vagrancy. A husband who is capable of earning and is bodily able cannot escape liability to maintain his wife,” it added.
The court, while allowing the woman’s plea, held that the grant of a meagre, illusory, and static amount of maintenance could drive the wife to “penury”. “The amount has to be worked out, with an element of guesswork by taking into account all broad parameters and inflationary costs of living, to fulfil the constitutional goal of ensuring the dignity of the wife, as envisaged under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India,” the court added.
Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma stated that a meagre, illusory amount of maintenance could drive the wife to penury.