The Supreme Court on Friday directed a man who claimed to earn ₹325 per day to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s earlier order on the issue of maintenance, while disposing of the wife’s plea seeking enhancement of alimony.

The Court had earlier remarked that the husband’s claim about his income was “difficult to swallow.”

During the hearing, the husband had stated that he earned only ₹9,000 per month, which the Court had observed appeared implausibly low in present economic conditions.

“Who earns ₹9,000 these days?” Justice Nath had asked during the exchange.

The matter arose from a petition by the wife seeking enhancement of the alimony amount granted by a trial court. The trial court had granted ₹6 lakh alimony to be paid to the wife as a full and final amount, which the husband had complied with.

However, dissatisfied with the amount, the wife moved the High Court claiming an amount of ₹30 lakh. The High Court rejected her plea and upheld the trial court's order. She then moved the Supreme Court.

During the hearing before the top court, the wife’s counsel had informed the Court that she had proposed two possible ways to resolve the dispute: either ₹12,000 per month for the rest of her life with annual increases, or a lump sum payment of ₹30 lakh.

Appearing for the husband, Advocate George Pothan had argued that alimony must be assessed in light of the husband’s financial capacity and liabilities. He submitted that the man worked seven days a week and earned ₹325 per day, while also being supported by his siblings and paying for his children’s education.

“He has no means to pay. To even pay alimony, his father had to sell joint property,” Pothan had submitted.

Justice Mehta, however, responded bluntly.

“Beg, borrow, steal, that is the principle. To maintain your wife,” he had remarked.

After hearing the parties and reserving its decision earlier, the Supreme Court today declined to interfere with the High Court’s order and directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.