Just because a husband is a 22-year-old electrical engineering student doesn't mean he can skip out on supporting his wife, according to a recent ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed his case. The court pointed out that he can't claim he is unable to support his wife due to financial constraints as long as he has the ability to earn.
The high court also said that being in school doesn't excuse him from his legal duty to maintain his wife, as this obligation is absolute and stems from their relationship.
To tell you more about the background which led to this judgement, this situation arose when a marriage fell apart between the two young people in June 2020. He was just 16 years and 4 months old, while she was 25. They didn't have any children till the time this case was ongoing.
Also read: Signed away maintenance agreement? HC says wife can still claim more; here’s why
When the marriage broke down in early 2023, both parties took legal action. He had filed for annulment of the marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act while she sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC after three years of living apart, as reported by LiveLaw.
In August 2025, the Faridabad Family Court ordered him to pay her an interim maintenance of Rs 2,500.
Feeling aggrieved, he filed an appeal in the Punjab And Haryana High Court. He told the court that he is a student and his family is entirely dependent on his mother's Rs 3,000 widow pension. He also argued that she (the wife) was living with her parents and four brothers, all of whom were doing quite well financially, so he shouldn't have to pay the Rs 2,500 monthly maintenance.
The high court explained that the legal provisions for giving maintenance to a wife is not meant to punish any husband for neglect, but rather to ensure that a wife is not forced into a life of vagrancy and penury. The court emphasized that maintenance money can provide her food, shelter and clothing.
Also read: Wife’s MBA degree or past employment with MNCs can’t stop her from demanding maintenance, rules HC
The high court cited a Supreme Court case (Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, 2015), and said that the inherent principle behind Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home, reported LiveLaw.
Additionally, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that his claim of not being able to pay because he is unemployed or his business isn't thriving are only "bald excuses" and such claims hold no weight in law.
The high court said that a healthy and able-bodied man who can support himself is legally obliged to support his wife, and her right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
Using these principles, the high court pointed out that the husband in this case is healthy and does not suffer from any disability.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court also said that the Faridabad Family Court had correctly ignored his affidavit claiming zero income, observing that even a daily wage labourer earns around Rs 12,000 to Rs 13,000 per month.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court therefore concluded that the husband should be considered capable of supporting his wife.
When it came to the maintenance amount, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted the skyrocketing prices of essential commodities and the wife's reasonable needs. The court stated that Rs 2,500 per month is barely sufficient for her survival and found no ground to reduce it. Consequently, his revision plea was dismissed by the high court.
