The octogenarian, an Army veteran, had challenged a family court order directing him to pay a monthly interim maintenance of ₹15,000 to his 77-year-old wife.
A husband who possesses the means to support his wife is legally and morally obligated to do so throughout her lifetime, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal made this remark while affirming a family court’s direction to an 86-year-old Army veteran to pay his 77-year-old wife a monthly interim maintenance of ₹15,000.
The Court noted that although the husband is of advanced age, the wife too is elderly and lacks the capacity to sustain herself independently.
“It is no answer to her claim of maintenance that she can seek support and maintenance from her sons. The husband, who has the financial capacity and income to support his wife is bound by law and morality to maintain her as long as she is alive. It is not the case that the respondent-wife is gainfully employed and can support herself. She has to be protected from a life of destitution and penury,” it added.
“The husband, who has the financial capacity and income to support his wife is bound by law and morality to maintain her as long as she is alive.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
The lawyer for the octogenarian contested the family court’s order issued in Narnaul on April 30.
It was argued that the husband, being paralysed and dependent, is already neglected by his sons, who support their mother and take care of her, while refusing to look after him.
It was additionally contended that the family court had fixed interim maintenance at ₹15,000 per month on the assumption that the husband was drawing a pension of ₹42,750 and owned 2½ acres of agricultural land in the village. However, a certificate issued by the village sarpanch was presented to show that he was physically immobile and that his sons were in possession of all his land and property.
After considering these arguments, the Court observed that it remained undisputed that the octogenarian was receiving a pension of ₹42,750 and that the land, though in the possession of his sons, was still legally his.
“Considering the status in life of the parties, the reasonable wants of the wife including food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance treatment etc. and the income of the husband, who besides drawing good amount of pension, is also owner of 2½ acres land in village Kanti, award of interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- does not appear to be excessive,” the Court said.
The Court further remarked that the interim maintenance had been fairly determined in proportion to the parties’ status, leaving no justification for interference. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
