The Telangana High Court ordered the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month to the wife instead of Rs 40,000. (AI Generated Image)Underlining that “sustenance could not be equated to just survival”, the Telangana High Court has held that the income of the wife must be enough to maintain herself, similar to the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home, while ordering a man to pay Rs 20,000 maintenance to his estranged wife and son.Justice J Sreenivas Rao was hearing a plea filed by the man against the order of a trial court, which directed him to pay Rs 60,000 maintenance to his wife and son in a matrimonial case.“The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival,” the July 14 order read.The court noted that the wife was unable to maintain herself and her son from her earnings and there was an obligation on the husband to take their care and provide necessary financial assistance. The court, therefore, modified the trial court ruling and ordered the husband to pay Rs 20,000 monthly maintenance “on or before the 10th of every month” and pay the “overdue maintenance within four weeks”. Justice J Sreenivas Rao held that since the wife’s income was not enough the husband was obligated to provide them with the necessary financial assistance.Also read | Forced to arrange late-night travel after bus fails to arrive, family wins Rs 7,800 payoutThe estranged couple got married in February 2021, but some years later the wife alleged harassment by the husband and his family for dowry. She also claimed that after their son was born, her in-laws and husband demanded Rs 20 lakh dowry and stopped giving her proper food.In May 2022, the woman alleged that her husband’s family beat her mercilessly and threw her out of the matrimonial home along with her son. The wife also alleged that she learnt from reliable sources that the husband had married another woman and was living with her.She subsequently filed a plea before a sessions court and claimed Rs 1.20 lakh monthly maintenance towards the upkeep of herself and her son. The trial court ordered the husband to pay a total maintenance of Rs 60,000 interim maintenance, following which he challenged the order before the high court.Story continues below this adAdvocate P Vamsheedhar Reddy, appearing for the woman and her son, argued that his client was harassed by the husband and his family for dowry. The counsel further argued that the husband had not provided any financial assistance and had not taken care of the wife or her son in any manner and had neglected them even though he had enough sources to pay the maintenance to them.He said that the wife was an educated woman and had done great hard work for the well-being of her son by performing odd jobs and that she had no other source of income, and the son was a student, hence required school fees, transportation, food, shelter, and medical expenses as well. Therefore, the maintenance amount that the trial court had directed the husband to pay was justified.Also read | Gauhati High Court blocks senior citizen’s bid to oust son, daughter-in-law from houseThe husband’s lawyer, advocate Y Krishna Mohan Rao contested the woman’s claims, submitting that the wife was a working woman, earning Rs 87,000 monthly. The lawyer, therefore, contended that she had “sufficient means” to maintain herself and her minor son. Rao said that while ordering the husband to pay the maintenance, the trial court had not paid attention to the fact that the husband had to take care of himself and also his old-aged parents.