The High Court noted that though there is evidence to show that the wife was employed with a salary of ₹3,500 per month. However, the Court said that this is not enough to take away the husband’s liability to pay maintenance.
“Merely because the wife is earning the husband cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance amount,” the Court remarked.
The Court added that the maintenance amount ordered to be paid by the man was meagre.
“It is meagre amount of ₹1,500 and ₹2,000 per month. It was not possible for them to maintain themselves out of it. Therefore, merely because she is doing a job in private company the husband who is able bodied husband and father cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance. On this ground, suppressing material fact does not extinguish right of maintenance,” the Court held.
It proceeded to dismiss the main’s revision plea and also imposed costs of ₹ 5,000 on him.
“If it is not deposited, the trial Court/Executing Court may proceed further as per law for recovery of that amount with 9% p.a. interest from 1 st July, 2024,” the Court added.
The Court reasoned that the cost amount was imposed since the wife and son would have incurred some expenses for contesting the instant revision plea.
Source: Barandbench
