“Don’t Marry If You Can’t Maintain”: Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea Against Interim Maintenance

The Allahabad High Court has held that a husband cannot evade his legal obligation to maintain his wife by citing financial hardship, observing that once a man marries, he is bound in law to support his spouse and those who feel incapable of doing so ought not to marry in the first place.

"Such of those who feel that they cannot maintain a wife and children if the marriage goes sour, ought not to get married in the first place at all", said the division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran.

Court observed so while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order directing him to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite to his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The bench found no infirmity in the order dated November 17, 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj.

Before the high court, the appellant-husband contended that the trial court had imposed the maintenance burden without properly appreciating his financial condition, despite details of his income, expenditure and liabilities being placed on record.

He also alleged that the respondent-wife was living with another man and that the parties had mutually separated through an affidavit, which the trial court allegedly failed to consider.

The high court, however, noted that these contentions were duly examined by the family court. It referred to the wife’s replication, wherein she denied the allegations as false and defamatory, asserting that they were raised only to malign her in judicial proceedings.

With respect to the alleged separation affidavit, court recorded that the wife had claimed it was obtained through deceit, taking advantage of her lack of education. The family court had treated these rival claims as disputed questions of fact that would require evidence and adjudication during trial.

The bench agreed with this approach, observing that the trial court had considered the cumulative effect of the submissions made by both parties before arriving at its conclusion.

Court also took note of the wife’s submission that she was burdened with maintaining her children and had no independent source of income. The family court had clarified that while such a claim could be pursued in separate proceedings, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits only a spouse to seek maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial litigation.

Affirming the quantum fixed by the family court, the high court held that ₹4,000 per month could not be considered excessive given the prevailing cost of living.

It also found that the appellant had failed to place sufficient material before the court to substantiate his claim of financial incapacity.

The high court further noted that the family court had directed the husband to clear arrears of maintenance for the period from August 1, 2024 to November 17, 2025 in five instalments.

Finding no material infirmity in the impugned order, the high court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the direction requiring the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite along with arrears as directed.

Case Title: Tej Bahadur Maurya vs Smt. Nisha Maurya

Order Date: April 7, 2026

Bench: Justices Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran