“Who Earns ₹9,000 Today?”: Supreme Court Questions Husband’s Income Claim in Alimony Dispute

The Supreme Court of India on Friday witnessed a sharp exchange during the hearing of a matrimonial dispute, as it questioned a husband’s claim that he earned only ₹9,000 per month and was unable to pay higher alimony.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the income claim was “difficult to swallow”.

“Who earns ₹9,000 these days?” Justice Nath remarked.

When Advocate George Pothan, appearing for the husband, submitted that his client earned ₹325 per day, the Court expressed scepticism and said it could summon the employer for clarification. Justice Nath even remarked in lighter vein that the counsel could contribute towards the maintenance.

The matter relates to a petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of alimony. A trial court had earlier awarded ₹6 lakh as full and final settlement, which the husband paid. Dissatisfied, the wife approached the High Court seeking ₹30 lakh, but her plea was rejected. She then moved the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the wife’s counsel submitted two proposals: ₹12,000 per month for life with annual increments, or a lump sum payment of ₹30 lakh.

Pothan argued that alimony must be determined based on the husband’s financial capacity and liabilities. He stated that the husband was being supported by siblings and was bearing children’s education expenses. He further claimed that even the earlier alimony payment was made after the husband’s father sold joint family property.

Justice Mehta responded bluntly, stating, “Beg, borrow, steal — that is the principle. To maintain your wife.”

When the counsel reiterated that his client worked seven days a week earning ₹325 daily, the Bench indicated it might summon “Hindustan Auto Agency,” the employer, and seek an enquiry from the concerned authority.

Pothan submitted that colleagues were willing to file affidavits confirming similar wages and that the employer could also file an affidavit.

At one stage, Justice Mehta suggested reconciliation, saying the husband could keep the wife with him as “the best way out.” The counsel responded that the wife had filed complaints against the husband’s parents, casting doubt on reconciliation.

The Court has reserved its order in the matter.

#SupremeCourt #AlimonyCase #MatrimonialDispute #MaintenanceCase #JudicialHearing #IndianCourts #LegalNews