Healthy, fit person bound to maintain wife, children: HC to Mumbai man | mumbai news | Hindustan Times
  • Monday, Jul 16, 2018
  •   °C  
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 16, 2018-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Healthy, fit person bound to maintain wife, children: HC to Mumbai man

The man had argued that the quantum of maintenance was excessive in view of the fact that his estranged wife was earning and he had lost his source of income.

mumbai Updated: Dec 10, 2017 00:52 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari
Kanchan Chaudhari
Hindustan Times
The Bombay high court ruled that a healthy, able-bodied man is legally bound to support his wife and children.
The Bombay high court ruled that a healthy, able-bodied man is legally bound to support his wife and children.(HT File)

The Bombay high court on Friday ruled that a healthy, physically fit person, capable of supporting himself, is bound to support his wife. It rejected a petition filed by a pharmacist, that challenged the grant of interim maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter, on the ground that he was no longer earning.

“If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to support his wife,” said Justice Mahesh Sonak, confirming a November 2014 order of the principal judge of the family court at Solapur.

The family court had directed the pharmacist to pay Rs9,000 to his estranged wife and Rs3,000 to his minor daughter, towards interim maintenance during the pendency of their matrimonial dispute.

Challenging the above order, the husband had approached the high court asserting that his pharmacy had been shut down on government orders, and he had lost his means of income.

He further argued that the quantum of maintenance was excessive in view of the fact that his estranged wife was earning and residing with his minor daughter in the premises provided by him.

Justice Sonak outright rejected the pharmacist’s contention. He noted that the husband admittedly held a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy and ran a pharmacy. He said the circumstances in which the pharmacy was shut down were unclear.

“In any case, the petitioner, cannot, despite such qualification and financial capacity, claim he is sitting idle and avoid payment of maintenance,” said the judge. He added that this principle applies with added rigor in cases of minor children.