New Delhi, 1 March : In a significant hearing about a divorce case, the Supreme Court of India raised serious doubts about a man’s claim that he earns only ₹325 per day and cannot afford to pay ₹12,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
The husband told the court that even though he works all month as a daily wage labourer, he earns around ₹9,000. Based on this, he argued that paying ₹12,000 in alimony each month was beyond his means.
However, a bench made up of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed strong disbelief. The judges noted that in today’s economy, it is hard to believe that someone employed by a company earns such a low daily wage.
The court suggested it might summon Hindustan Auto Agency, where the husband claimed to work, to confirm the salary details. The bench questioned how any company could legally pay wages below the minimum standard, indicating that the statement did not seem credible.
Defending his client, advocate George Pothan told the court that the husband was being truthful and was ready to submit an affidavit about his income. However, the bench called the claim “impossible” and made pointed remarks. The judges stated that if the husband truly could not pay maintenance, he should keep his wife with him so she could cook and help support herself, the children, and even him.
When the husband argued that his wife had also filed complaints against his parents, Justice Mehta responded firmly that arranging financial support for his wife was entirely his responsibility. The court noted that he must find a way to meet that obligation, even if he needed to borrow money or seek help.
At one point, when the bench mentioned summoning the company, the husband’s lawyer said that such action might ultimately benefit other workers too.
The case comes from an earlier order by a lower court that granted a divorce after telling the husband to pay ₹6 lakh to his wife. Unsatisfied with the amount, the wife went to the High Court and later approached the Supreme Court seeking higher compensation. She proposed two options: either lifetime maintenance of ₹12,000 per month with a fixed annual increase or a one-time settlement of ₹30 lakh.
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the matter.
