The Himachal Pradesh High Court partially granted a petition filed by the petitioner to quash and set aside an order dated 20.8.2022, issued by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Shimla, in which the respondent was granted ₹5,000/-per month in maintenance under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance. The respondent’s argument that he is making less than the minimum wage is not acceptable, the court noted, and that the respondent’s income must be evaluated in accordance with minimum wages. In order to request maintenance, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was claimed that on March 5 and 6, 2018, the petitioner and respondent were married. After the marriage, the parties continued to live together. After roughly two months of marriage, the respondent with his family members began harassing the petitioner for no apparent cause. The petitioner was asked to convince her parents to give her a larger dowry by the respondent with his family. The petitioner was verbally and physically abused by the respondent, who also used foul words against her. The Women’s Police Station received a complaint from the petitioner. While the respondent works as a chartered accountant, the petitioner does not have a source of income. Thus, the maintenance request in the petition. The petitioner was granted support by the learned principal judge of the Family Court in Shimla, who ruled that there was no dispute regarding the parties’ relationship.
The petitioner’s experienced attorney argued that the respondent had suffered grave injustice as a result of the learned principal judge of the family court’s extremely harsh stance. The respondent had never ignored or refused to maintain the petitioner, and the petitioner had left without giving a good reason. The respondent earns ₹6,000 a month; hence it would be unfair to require ₹5,000 a month towards maintenance. The respondent’s learned counsel stated that the respondent is a physically fit individual. He cannot avoid his financial obligations by claiming that he is unable to support his spouse. It is not appropriate to decide at this time whether the petitioner left her marital residence voluntarily or not, as the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court in Shimla correctly stated. The respondent is a physically fit individual, and as such, the Court stated that he should be paid the minimum wages set by the State Government. This is an undeniable fact.
The Court noted that an able-bodied individual cannot avoid providing maintenance to their wife on the grounds that he lacks the income to do so. As a result, the respondent’s argument that he is making less than the minimum wage is unaccepted, and the respondent’s income must be determined using minimum wages. The Court further stated that a wife cannot be refused maintenance because she is capable of earning it. Since the wife is well qualified and able to support herself, it is not possible to deny her maintenance. In order to refuse maintenance, it must be demonstrated that the wife is making enough money to cover her expenses; this does not prove that she can support herself. The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted partial permission to the plea and decided to lower the current interim maintenance from ₹5,000 to ₹4,500 per month starting on the date the petition was filed.