“Who Earns ₹9,000 Today?” Supreme Court Questions Husband’s Plea Against ₹12,000 Maintenance

The Supreme Court of India recently heard a matrimonial dispute where a husband claimed that he earned only ₹9,000 per month and could not afford to pay ₹12,000 as monthly maintenance to his wife. The Court openly questioned the credibility of this claim.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed disbelief at the income figure stated by the husband. The Court observed that it was difficult to accept that a person in present times would be earning such a low monthly salary.

“Who earns ₹9,000 today?” the Bench remarked during the hearing. The husband’s counsel submitted that his client earned ₹325 per day and worked throughout the week. However, the judges were not convinced by this explanation.

The Court even indicated that it may directly summon the employer to verify the salary details. It mentioned the name of the company and stated that an enquiry could be conducted to ascertain the actual income.

At one point, the Bench made a light-hearted comment suggesting that even the lawyer could contribute towards the maintenance amount. The remark reflected the Court’s view that the husband’s financial claim required closer scrutiny.

The matter arises from a petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of alimony. A trial court had earlier granted her ₹6 lakh as a full and final settlement, and the husband had complied with that order.

Unsatisfied with the amount, the wife approached the High Court seeking ₹30 lakh. The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s decision. She then moved the Supreme Court challenging that outcome.

During the hearing, the wife’s counsel informed the Court that two settlement proposals had been offered. “I had made two offers. One, I may be paid a sum of ₹12,000 per month for the rest of my life with annual increase. Alternatively, I may be given a lump sum amount of ₹30 lakh,” he submitted.

The husband’s counsel argued that maintenance must be determined based on the husband’s actual earning capacity and liabilities. He stated that the husband was supported by family members and that his father had sold joint property to pay the earlier alimony.

Justice Mehta responded firmly, saying, “Beg, borrow, steal, that is the principle. To maintain your wife,” underlining the legal duty to provide maintenance.

In another moment, the Court suggested reconciliation, stating that keeping the wife at home could be a practical solution. The counsel replied that disputes between the families made such an arrangement unlikely.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its order. The final judgement is awaited.