Allahabad High Court: Financial Hardship No Excuse to Deny Wife Maintenance, Marriage Carries Legal Responsibility
By Rajesh Pandey
In a firm yet deeply human observation, the Allahabad High Court has underlined a simple but often overlooked truth—marriage is not just an emotional bond, it is a legal and moral responsibility that cannot be abandoned when circumstances turn difficult.
Hearing an appeal filed by Tej Bahadur Maurya, a division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran refused to interfere with a family court’s order directing the husband to pay ₹4,000 as interim maintenance to his wife during the pendency of their matrimonial dispute.
The man had approached the court, arguing that his financial condition had not been adequately considered.
He claimed to be a labourer and said the amount imposed on him was beyond his means. He also alleged that his wife was living with another man and that the couple had mutually separated.
But the court, after carefully examining the case, found that these arguments had already been taken into account by the family court.
It noted that the wife had no independent source of income and was also bearing the responsibility of raising her children—an aspect that weighed heavily in the court’s reasoning.
In its observation, the bench struck a candid and almost philosophical note.
It said that a man, once married, cannot evade his legal duty to support his wife by citing financial hardship.
If one feels incapable of fulfilling such responsibilities, the court remarked, then marriage itself should not be undertaken.
The judges also pointed out that in today’s economic reality, the amount awarded could not be considered excessive.
They found no substantial proof to support the husband’s claims about his inability to pay, noting that mere assertions without evidence cannot be grounds to escape responsibility.
By dismissing the appeal on April 7, the court reaffirmed a principle rooted not just in law, but in fairness—that relationships may break down, but accountability does not.
The ruling serves as a reminder that while marriages may falter, the duties arising from them continue to hold weight in the eyes of the law.
