Can a man earning just Rs 325 per day be forced to pay Rs 10,000 every month as maintenance? What did the Supreme Court say when he claimed it was impossible?
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court yesterday (Feb 27) heard a maintenance case that has triggered serious debate across the country. In the matter, the apex court directed a husband to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The man, however, informed the court that he earns only Rs 325 per day, making the amount extremely difficult for him to arrange.
During the hearing, the top court ordered the monthly payment of Rs 10,000 after considering the circumstances of the case. The husband clearly stated that with a daily earning of Rs 325, he would not be able to manage such a high monthly amount. He argued that it was practically impossible for him to comply with the direction due to his limited income.
The man also told the court that he cannot afford the monthly cost of Rs 10,000 and added that his colleagues were ready to support his claim by filing documents regarding his income. In response, the court advised him to “keep his wife” and try to resolve the dispute peacefully.
“You keep your wife, then. She will make food for you, for your children”
-the court told the man after he disclosed his daily income.
The husband, however, replied that complaints had already been filed against him and his parents. He further stated that his marriage is unlikely to survive.
Observing the situation, the Supreme Court said that if the husband was earning such a low amount, it would communicate with the company employing him and question the low wages being paid.
“Let them file an affidavit”
-the court said when informed that other employees could also confirm the salary structure.
The husband’s counsel responded that it would be better if other workers from the company were also heard. The Supreme Court later reserved its order in the matter.
In a related development last year, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea from a man who claimed he was unemployed and therefore unable to pay maintenance. The court observed that an able-bodied husband has a legal obligation to support his wife and must earn “even by physical labour“.
The case once again brings focus on how maintenance orders are determined, especially in situations where the husband claims to have a very low income. While the law aims to ensure financial security for wives, questions continue to arise about proportionality, earning capacity, and the practical burden placed on men who are already struggling to survive on modest daily wages.
Explanatory Table Of Laws And Legal Principles Referred In The Case
| Law / Legal Provision | Court Mentioned | Core Legal Principle | Practical Impact on Husband |
| Maintenance Law (General Maintenance Jurisdiction) | Supreme Court of India | Court has authority to grant monthly maintenance to wife based on circumstances of the case | Husband directed to pay Rs 10,000 per month despite claiming income of Rs 325 per day |
| Principle of Financial Support by Husband | Allahabad High Court (Previous Year Observation) | An able-bodied husband has a duty to maintain his wife | Court observed husband must earn “even by physical labour” to fulfil maintenance obligation |
| Affidavit of Income (Evidentiary Procedure) | Supreme Court of India | Income claims can be verified through affidavit and employer scrutiny | Court indicated it would verify salary structure through employer |
Key Takeaways
- Disproportionate Burden: A man earning roughly Rs 9,750 per month (Rs 325 x 30 days) is directed to pay Rs 10,000 per month — more than his entire stated income.
- Presumption Against Husband: The legal system continues to presume that an “able-bodied” man must somehow generate income, regardless of economic reality.
- Financial Impossibility Ignored: The claim of low income was not immediately accepted; instead, employer scrutiny was considered, reflecting systemic distrust of men’s financial disclosures.
- Emotional Coercion in Courtroom Language: The remark “You keep your wife, then. She will make food for you, for your children,” reflects how reconciliation is framed without addressing legal complaints already filed against the husband and his parents.
- Structural Imbalance in Maintenance Law: Maintenance jurisprudence still operates on a one-sided duty model, where male survival, dignity, and financial capacity are secondary to mechanical enforcement of payment obligations.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.