The Supreme Court on Friday expressed strong scepticism over a husband’s claim that he earns only ₹9,000 per month while opposing a plea for enhanced maintenance. The Court remarked that such an income figure was “difficult to swallow” in present times and indicated that it may verify the claim by summoning the employer.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of alimony.
Background of the Maintenance Dispute
A trial court had earlier directed the husband to pay ₹6 lakh as full and final alimony. The husband has already paid this amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the wife approached the High Court seeking ₹30 lakh as permanent alimony.
The High Court declined to interfere and upheld the trial court’s order. The wife thereafter moved the Supreme Court.
Wife’s Settlement Proposals
During the hearing, counsel for the wife submitted that she had proposed two settlement options to resolve the dispute. One option involved payment of ₹12,000 per month for the rest of her life, with an annual increase. The second option was a lump sum payment of ₹30 lakh.
Husband Cites Limited Income and Liabilities
Appearing for the husband, Advocate George Pothan argued that maintenance must be fixed keeping in mind the husband’s financial capacity and existing liabilities. He submitted that the husband earns only ₹325 per day and is financially supported by his siblings.
Pothan further stated that the husband bears the expenses of his children’s education. He added that the husband’s father had to sell joint family property to arrange the earlier alimony amount.
Court Expresses Doubt Over Income Claim
The Bench expressed disbelief over the income figures presented. Justice Vikram Nath remarked that earning ₹9,000 per month was implausible in today’s economic conditions, stating, “Who earns ₹9,000 these days?”
The Court indicated that it would verify the claim by summoning the employer. At one stage, Justice Nath referred to Hindustan Auto Agency, while Justice Mehta said the Court would seek an inquiry from the concerned authority.
Strong Observations on Spousal Maintenance
Justice Mehta made a pointed observation on the legal obligation to maintain one’s spouse. He remarked, “Beg, borrow, steal — that is the principle. To maintain your wife.”
In a lighter moment, Justice Nath remarked that even the husband’s counsel could contribute towards the maintenance amount.
Counsel Responds to Court’s Remarks
Pothan responded that his client works seven days a week. He submitted that colleagues were willing to file affidavits stating that they earn similar wages. He also suggested that the employer could be directed to submit an affidavit before the Court.
During the exchanges, Justice Mehta suggested that keeping the wife with the husband could be “the best way out.” He observed that she could take care of the household and children. Pothan replied that the wife had filed complaints against the husband’s parents and expressed doubt that reconciliation was possible.
Order Reserved
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its order in the matte
