Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a revision petition filed by a man challenging the Family Court's order to pay maintenance to his estranged wife.

Court emphasized the man's obligation to financially support his wife, stating that even if the court assumed the petitioner had no income he was still duty-bound to provide maintenance.

"If he engaged himself in labour work also too then also he may earned as a un-skilled labour about Rs.350/- to Rs.400/- per day as a minimum wages,"(sic) the single judge bench comprising Justice Renu Agarwal said. 

The man moved the high court against the Family Court's order to pay Rs 2000 per month to his estranged wife. During the proceedings, court was apprised that the couple married in 2015 without any dowry exchange. Initially, the wife spent only four days at her matrimonial home before returning to her parental residence. She later returned for a brief period of ten days but subsequently went back to her parental home and filed a complaint against the man in which he was summoned under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act.

The man submitted that despite his numerous attempts, the wife declined to return, compelling him to file a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights in 2016. During pendency of man's this application, the wife filed an application under section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance which was allowed by the Family Court. 

The man argued that the Family Court overlooked the fact that the wife, a graduate and employed as a school teacher who was capable of maintaining herself, had left her in-laws' house without a valid reason.

He stated that his sole source of income was his labor work, as he had no other means of earning. He mentioned that his family, comprising his father, mother, and two sisters, relied on income from agriculture.

Contrarily, the wife's counsel claimed dowry-related abuse. He also claimed that the husband earned Rs 10,000 as a factory laborer, Rs 50,000 from his milk and milk products business, and also had income from agricultural land.

Court noted that though the wife had failed to produce any document related to the man's income, there was sufficient material on record to show that the man was healthy and capable of earning money.

"For the sake of argument, if the court presumed that revisionist has no income from his job or from rent of Maruti Van, even then revisionist is duty bound to provide maintenance to his wife, as is held Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SC 805," the bench said. 

Accordingly, court dismissed the man's petition and asked the trial court concerned to take all coercive action against the man for the recovery of maintenance still unpaid. 

Case Title: Kamal v.  State Of U.P And Another