Allahabad High Court Upholds Maintenance Order, Rules Financial Hardship No Excuse for Husband's Duty

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a man cannot use financial hardship as an excuse to avoid supporting his wife and children. Upholding a maintenance order, the court emphasized the husband's legal duty to provide for his family, especially when the wife lacks independent income and shoulders childcare responsibilities.

In a no-nonsense rap, the Allahabad High Court has delivered a sharp reality check: if you think you can't support a wife and children when things go south, you've got no business tying the knot. Hearing a case involving a labourer, the court made it clear that a man cannot hide behind empty pockets to dodge his legal duty.

“Once a man marries a woman, he is bound under the law to maintain her,” the bench stressed, shutting down the husband's plea.

The case concerned Prayagraj resident Tej Bahadur Maurya, who had challenged a family court order directing him to pay ₹4,000 as interim maintenance to his wife. His defence rested on financial hardship and claims that key facts were overlooked — including allegations that his wife was living with another man and that the couple had mutually separated. But the High Court was not convinced.

After reviewing the record, the judges upheld the family court’s order, noting that all allegations had already been duly considered. More importantly, the court highlighted the wife’s circumstances — no independent source of income and the full responsibility of raising the children.

As for the ₹4,000 maintenance, the court found nothing excessive or unreasonable, especially given the rising cost of living. Maurya’s claim of being merely a labourer also failed to carry weight, with the bench pointing out the absence of concrete proof to substantiate it.

In February this year, the Allahabad High Court had cited the Supreme Court of India judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which underscored that it is the husband's sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife. The ruling added that an able-bodied man is expected to earn — even through physical labour — and cannot evade this obligation.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India also directed an employer to deduct ₹25,000 from a husband's monthly salary and transfer it directly to his estranged wife via RTGS as maintenance for her and their minor child. In a similar vein, the Delhi High Court recently observed that a homemaker's labour cannot be treated as “idle” and must be duly recognised while determining maintenance.