NEW DELHI<\/em>: The Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong> yesterday (Feb 27) heard a maintenance<\/a><\/strong> 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<\/strong>. The man, however, informed the court that he earns only Rs 325 per day<\/strong>, making the amount extremely difficult for him to arrange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> due to his limited income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>. In response, the court advised him to \u201ckeep his wife<\/em><\/strong>” and try to resolve the dispute peacefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou keep your wife, then. She will make food for you, for your children”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n -the court told the man after he disclosed his daily income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband, however, replied that complaints had already been filed against him and his parents<\/strong>. He further stated that his marriage is unlikely to survive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLet them file an affidavit”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n -the court said when informed that other employees could also confirm the salary structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband\u2019s 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a related development last year, the Allahabad High Court<\/strong> dismissed a plea from a man who claimed he was unemployed<\/strong> and therefore unable to pay maintenance<\/strong>. The court observed that an able-bodied husband<\/strong> has a legal obligation to support his wife<\/strong> and must earn \u201ceven by physical labour<\/em><\/strong>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table Of Laws And Legal Principles Referred In The Case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n