Punjab and Haryana HC directed a 22-year-old engineering student to pay ₹2,500 interim maintenance to his 31-year-old wife, observing that a husband has a legal duty to maintain his wife and cannot evade this responsibility merely on the ground of being a student.

On facts, the husband argued that the marriage took place in June 2020 under compelling circumstances when he was a minor (16 years and 4 months old), while the wife was 25 years old. The couple had no children, and he later sought annulment under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in 2023.

He further contended that he was a full-time student with no independent source of income and that his family survived solely on his mother’s ₹3,000 widow pension. It was also argued that the wife was not destitute, as she resided with her earning family members.

Rejecting these submissions, High Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy. It is not punitive in nature but ensures basic subsistence for a dependent spouse.

Relying on Supreme Court’s ruling in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, Court noted that pleas of unemployment or lack of income are often “bald excuses” and do not absolve a husband of his legal duty, especially if he is able-bodied and capable of earning.

Court observed that the husband was healthy and capable of earning, and noted that even a daily wage labourer earns around ₹12,000–₹13,000 per month.

Considering rising living costs, Court held that ₹2,500 per month is minimal and justified, and accordingly dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband against the order of Family Court, Faridabad.