The Supreme Court on Friday witnessed a sharp and witty exchange in a matrimonial case, as it questioned a husband’s claim that he earned only ₹9,000 per month and could not afford to pay more alimony.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the husband's claim of earning ₹9,000 per month was "difficult to swallow".

"Who earns ₹9,000 these days?" Justice Nath asked.

When the counsel appearing for the husband said that the man earns ₹325 per day, the Court said that it would call the company he works for. In jest, it even said that the husband's counsel, Advocate George Pothan, may chip in to pay the maintenance amount.

“Let the lawyer also contribute something then,” Justice Nath remarked in lighter vein.

The top court was hearing 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 lakhs. The High Court rejected her plea and upheld the trial court's order. She then moved the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the counsel for the wife told the Court that she had made two proposals in an attempt to end the dispute.

“I had made two offers. One, I may be paid a sum of ₹12,000 per month for the rest of my life with annual increase. Alternatively, I may be given a lump sum amount of ₹30 lakh,” he submitted.

Pothan argued that alimony must be assessed in light of the husband’s financial capacity and liabilities. He said that the husband was being supported by his siblings and was also paying for his children’s education.

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

Justice Mehta responded bluntly.

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

Pothan reiterated that his client worked seven days a week and earned ₹325 per day.

“Nobody gets ₹325 per day, Mr. Pothan,” Justice Nath replied.

The Court then indicated that it may directly summon the employer.

“Let us call Hindustan Auto Agency,” Justice Nath said.

Justice Mehta added,

“We will also have an enquiry from the concerned authority.”

Pothan responded that his client’s colleagues were willing to file affidavits to show that they were being paid similar amounts and that the employer could also be directed to file an affidavit.

At one point, Justice Mehta suggested another solution altogether.

“Alright, keep her (the wife) with you then. That’s the best way out. She’ll make food for you, for children, everything.”

Pothan replied that the wife had filed complaints against the husband’s parents and expressed doubt whether the marriage could work.

The Court then proceeded to reserve its order.