The petitioner is a 63-year-old retired ex-serviceman married to the respondent and has a son and a daughter. (Ai-generated image)Ruling that a husband cannot evade maintenance merely by claiming that he was thrown out of the matrimonial home by his wife, the Madras High Court has upheld an order directing a retired Army personnel to pay Rs 8000 per month to his wife, observing that the statutory obligation to support one’s spouse cannot be avoided.Justice P Vadamalai observed that the petitioner had not paid any maintenance despite being directed by the court to do so, leading to accumulated arrears of Rs 8,24,000.“A husband cannot be permitted to take a plea of being thrown out by his wife to disown his statutory duty, and further, the husband is not allowed to contend that he is financially unsound to maintain his wife, considering the admitted facts that he is a pensioner, who is receiving a military pension of more than Rs.20,000/- and is also earning income as an LIC agent,” the June 12 order noted. Justice P Vadamalai denied relief to an Army personnel by upholding maintenance to his wife.The petitioner is a 63-year-old retired ex-serviceman married to the respondent and has a son and a daughter.Due to some matrimonial issues, they had been living separately.The respondent had filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvaiyaru, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC from the petitioner.The petitioner is getting a pension from the Army and also earning income as an LIC agent, but he is not maintaining her and her children. The retired Army personnel contended that his wife was receiving rent from the houses constructed by him, and also their children are in a good position and living with the mother.The judicial magistrate heard both sides’ contentions and passed an order, dated March 12, 2020, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000 per month to the respondent as maintenance.Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District and Session Court, and by its order, the maintenance was revised to Rs 8000.Husband thrown out of matrimonial homeAdvocate R Devaraj argued that the petitioner, a retired Army personnel, was thrown out of his matrimonial home, and that his wife had been living in his own house and receiving rent from the tenants, so the maintenance is not required.It was submitted that the petitioner was ready to allow his wife to receive rent till her death, and that she also gets Rs 20,000 per month from her properties and the rented shop; additionally, their children were now earning members and were taking care of the mother, ignoring the father.The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner is aged and was living with only a pension of Rs 14,916, which is insufficient for his maintenance. Therefore, the order of maintenance should be set aside.‘Maintenance, fundamental legal obligation’Story continues below this adThe Madras High Court noted that it is the husband’s fundamental legal obligation to maintain his wife, and there was no reason for the court to interfere with the appellate court’s decision, and upheld the wife’s entitlement to receive Rs 8000 per month in maintenance.The court observed that neither of the parties had examined the tenants to establish how much they were paying rent; both the trial court and the appellate court had found that she was receiving Rs 6,500 per month in rent, which remains undisputed.The court said that Section 125 of the CrPC enumerates that an order of maintenance is a measure of social justice and has to be passed in cases where any person, despite having sufficient means of income, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. The court took into account that the petitioner, being duty-bound to maintain his wife, has not yet paid a single pie despite the court’s order, and that he is an ex-serviceman and is getting a pension in addition to earning more income as an LIC agent, and is financially sound and capable of maintaining the wife. Story continues below this adAlso Read | Court slams ‘cruelty’ finding against Army wife who chose career, kid’s health over husband’s Kargil postingSomya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More