Indian High Courts Uphold Husband's Maintenance Obligations Despite Claims of Hardship

The Orissa High Court rejected a petition by an educated, able‑bodied husband who argued unemployment and lack of income as a basis to avoid a family‑court maintenance order of Rs 6,000 per month for his wife and minor children. Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held that physical fitness and qualifications presume the ability to earn, and the husband offered no positive evidence of inability to work.

In a separate case, the Rajasthan High Court set aside a demand that a salaried husband pay retrospective arrears of Rs 20,000 per month dating back to 2014 in a domestic‑violence proceeding. Justice Farjand Ali emphasized that maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is remedial, meant to prevent starvation, and should not become a crushing money‑recovery claim. The court reduced the liability to a manageable monthly amount, noting the need to balance the claimant’s needs with the payer’s financial capacity.