Skip to main content

Maintenance Ka Kanoon: Har Baar Mard Hi Galat Nahi Hota!




Maintenance Ka Kanoon: Har Baar Mard Hi Galat Nahi Hota!

Explained by Advocate Prabal Bhandari

A must-read for anyone navigating family law or fighting a maintenance case.

In India, maintenance is often seen as a husband’s financial duty, especially after separation or divorce. But the reality is more nuanced—and the law, though empathetic to women, also acknowledges the rights and limitations of men. In my practice as an advocate, I’ve come across countless cases where men are forced to pay maintenance despite facing genuine hardships. So the question arises: Is a man always liable to pay maintenance?

The answer is nonot always. Indian courts have clearly laid down instances where a man can be relieved of this obligation, provided he has substantial and honest reasons.

Let’s break this down with clarity and support from landmark judgments.

One of the key principles courts rely on is "sufficient cause". In the case of C. Ali v. State of Kerala, the court observed that if a man can prove that his inability to pay is due to reasons beyond his control—say, serious illness, loss of job, or financial ruin—then he may not be compelled to pay maintenance. But this isn’t a free pass. The man must show that he wasn’t negligent or dishonest. The courts expect sincerity and transparency.

Another significant ground is lack of financial means. In Smt. Chawali v. State of U.P., the court emphasized that unless the man is truly unable to earn—because he’s unwell, disabled, or otherwise incapacitated—he can't simply walk away from his responsibilities. You can’t just say “I have no money” and be done with it. You need to prove it with medical reports, termination letters, or other strong documents. As a legal professional, I always advise clients to come prepared with solid evidence.

Now let’s talk about deductions and personal liabilities. Courts don’t expect men to pay maintenance if it leaves them penniless. In Tapaswini Das v. Santosh Kumar Swain, the man’s legitimate deductions—such as EMIs, existing responsibilities, and basic living costs—were considered before deciding the maintenance amount. The takeaway is simple: courts aim for balance, not burden.

But what happens if a man simply refuses to pay, without any valid reason? That’s where consequences kick in. In Jitendra Agarwal v. Secretary, Ideal Regency, the court made it clear: jail is a real possibility for defaulters. But let’s be clear—imprisonment doesn’t wipe off the debt. You still owe the amount. This measure is meant to compel compliance, not serve as punishment.

Interestingly, there’s also recognition of genuine incapacity, like mental illness or physical disability. In Sri. Kashimsab v. Smt. Khairunnisa, the Karnataka High Court relieved a man from full maintenance duties after it was proven that he was medically unfit to earn. Courts are not heartless; if you show a true and honest condition, relief is possible.

So here’s the bottom line: Men are not always liable to pay maintenance, especially if they can show:

  • There’s a valid and sufficient cause,

  • They have no real means of income,

  • Their obligations outweigh their earning capacity,

  • Or, they are incapacitated due to genuine health or legal issues.

But remember—you can’t just claim it. The burden of proof is on the man. Courts are fair but cautious. As an advocate who believes in empowering both sides, I urge men facing such legal battles to seek proper guidance, prepare their documents, and approach the court with honesty.

And to all the readers—whether you're a husband, wife, or simply someone curious about family law—know your rights, educate yourself, and never assume that the law is one-sided.

If you or someone you know is going through a maintenance-related legal issue, feel free to get in touch. I'm Advocate Prabal Bhandari, and my aim is to bring legal clarity to everyday people—without the jargon and confusion.

Most Googled Questions (and their clear answers):

Q. Can a man go to jail for not paying maintenance?
Yes, if the court finds he has intentionally defaulted without sufficient cause. But jail time doesn’t cancel the dues.

Q. What’s the best way to defend against a maintenance case?
Present real, documented reasons—like illness, job loss, or financial stress. Courts value evidence over excuses.

Q. Can the court reduce or cancel maintenance?
Absolutely. If a man’s financial state changes, or if the woman is earning independently, the court can revise the order.

Final Thought from Advocate Prabal Bhandari:

“Law should protect the vulnerable, not punish the helpless. Let’s understand the law beyond gender—because justice is for all.”

If you liked this post, share it with someone who might need it. Your awareness could save someone’s dignity.

  • Maintenance law for men in India

  • How to avoid paying maintenance in India legally

  • Maintenance case defense husband

  • When husband not liable to pay maintenance

  • Section 125 CrPC exceptions

  • Men’s rights in Indian family court

  • Legal ways to reduce maintenance amount

  • Maintenance relief for unemployed husband

For further assistance, legal consultation, or to discuss your specific concerns, feel free to connect.

Advocate Prabal Bhandari
Leading Advocate in Ludhiana,
Punjab & Haryana High Court

Practicing Since 2014
Email: advpb14@gmail.com
Website: www.prabalbhandari.com

Mobile: +91-75 2800 6900

Your Rights, My Responsibility.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Janaki” and Judicial Wisdom: A Constitutional Lens on Artistic Freedom and CBFC's Role

Janaki” and Judicial Wisdom: A Constitutional Lens on Artistic Freedom and CBFC's Role By Advocate Prabal Bhandari www.prabalbhandari.com   In a moment that resonates with constitutional clarity and judicial maturity, the Kerala High Court reminded the nation this week that art is not to be shackled by arbitrary gatekeeping , especially not when the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is at stake. The matter in question arose from a legal challenge filed by M/s Cosmos Entertainments , the production house behind the upcoming Malayalam film “JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala” , starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi . The controversy? The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) allegedly raised informal objections to the use of the name “Janaki” —claiming it refers to Goddess Sita and could, therefore, hurt religious sentiments. This objection, as presented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India , was purportedly based on the CBFC's interpretation of r...

Rights of Legal Heirs After a Plane Crash: A Legal Insight into the AI-171 Air India Boeing 787 Tragedy

Rights of Legal Heirs After a Plane Crash: A Legal Insight into the AI-171 Air India Boeing 787 Tragedy By Advocate Prabal Bhandari www.prabalbhandari.com The tragic crash of Air India Flight AI-171 shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad in May 2025 has devastated hundreds of families, claiming 274 innocent lives. While the investigation is ongoing, disturbing reports suggest that a software-triggered dual engine failure — allegedly caused by a known glitch in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s FADEC system — may have played a key role. As legal questions begin to arise, one must examine: What remedies are available to the families of the deceased? In India, the legal heirs of deceased passengers — including spouses, children, parents, or any legally recognized nominee — have the right to seek compensation for the irreparable loss they’ve suffered. This can be pursued both under Indian law and international legal frameworks, depending on the jurisdiction and facts of the case. Under the ...
Navigating EPF Section 7A Proceedings: An Advocate's Guide to Compliance and Defence By Advocate Prabal Bhandari www.prabalbhandari.com   As an employer in India, navigating the complexities of labour laws is not just a regulatory obligation but a strategic imperative. Among these, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) regulations hold significant weight. A crucial aspect often encountered by businesses, both large and small, is the proceeding initiated under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This section empowers the EPFO to determine the dues payable by an employer. For businesses, this can be a daunting prospect, often stemming from alleged non-compliance, under-reporting, or non-remittance of provident fund contributions. As an advocate specializing in labour and employment laws, I understand the intricacies of these proceedings and the critical steps required to protect your interests. This article ai...