An able-bodied husband must maintain his wife and cannot rely on unemployment or low income.

The husband challenged the revisional court’s dismissal of his revision, which had affirmed a Magistrate’s order directing him to pay his wife monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

He contended that the wife worked as a nurse and was financially better off, and that the Magistrate’s order had been made ex parte.

The Magistrate had relied on the wife’s unchallenged evidence and a payslip showing the husband earned ₹42,309 per month from South Western Railway; the husband had neither objected to the petition nor cross-examined her.

The revisional court dismissed his challenge and confirmed the maintenance order.

Whether the Magistrate’s order granting the wife maintenance of ₹10,000 per month, as affirmed by the revisional court, warranted interference by the High Court.

Whether the husband’s claims that the wife was employed and that the Magistrate’s order was ex parte justified setting aside the maintenance order.

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was the provision under which the wife sought relief; the petition before the High Court invoked Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Relying principally on Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, the Court reiterated that an able-bodied husband must provide financial support to his wife and cannot avoid that obligation on the basis of unsupported submissions; maintenance proceedings serve to prevent a deserted wife’s destitution.

The judgment also referred to Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai for the purpose of maintenance proceedings as a speedy remedy to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent orders.

The Magistrate had evidence of the marriage and the husband’s monthly income, while the wife’s evidence remained unchallenged because the husband did not appear or cross-examine her.

The husband’s assertions about the wife’s employment and comparative financial position did not displace that record.

Applying Anju Garg, the Court held that an able-bodied husband could not evade his maintenance obligation; if necessary, he must seek work or better-paid work to support his wife.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of as a consequence.