‘Beg, Borrow, Steal, That Is the Principle. To Maintain Your Wife’: Supreme Court Questions Husband’s Claim of Earning INR 9,000 a Month As Wife Seeks More Alimony

Mumbai, March 1: In a sharp and at times witty exchange, the Supreme Court of India on Friday, February 27, expressed strong skepticism over a husband's claim that he earns only INR 9,000 per month. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a petition by a wife seeking to enhance her alimony from the INR 6 lakh lump sum previously awarded by a trial court to INR 30 lakh. The court noted that such a low income claim was "difficult to swallow" in the current economic climate, eventually mooting an inquiry into the man's actual earnings.

A 'Difficult to Swallow' Financial Claim, Says Supreme Court

The legal battle intensified when the husband’s counsel, Advocate George Pothan, argued that his client earns a mere INR 325 per day working seven days a week. Justice Vikram Nath dismissed the figure, asking bluntly, "Who earns INR 9,000 these days?" Vikram Bhatt, Wife Shwetambari Bhatt Granted Bail by Supreme Court in Multi-Crore Cheating Case.

When the counsel insisted the man had no additional means and that his father had to sell joint property just to pay the initial INR 6 lakh, the Bench remained unconvinced. Justice Nath suggested that the court might directly summon the employer, Hindustan Auto Agency, to verify the salary records. Justice Mehta added that the court could also initiate an inquiry through the concerned authorities to find the truth behind the financial disclosures.

The 'Beg, Borrow, or Steal' Principle

The proceedings took a sterner tone when the court addressed the husband's legal obligation to support his spouse. Responding to the plea of financial incapacity, Justice Mehta remarked: "Beg, borrow, steal - that is the principle. To maintain your wife". The remark underscores the judiciary's long-standing position that a husband cannot easily absolve himself of maintenance duties by citing a lack of funds, especially when the disclosed income appears inconsistent with the cost of living.

Failed Proposals and Judicial Wit

The wife;s counsel informed the court that two settlement offers had been made: a monthly payment of INR 12,000 with an annual increase, or a one-time lump sum of INR 30 lakh. In a moment of levity during the tense session, Justice Nath jokingly suggested that if the husband truly couldn't afford the amount, his lawyer might have to contribute. Later, Justice Mehta suggested a different resolution: "Keep her with you then... she’ll make food for you, for children, everything." However, the husband’s counsel noted that the relationship was likely too embittered for reconciliation, citing previous complaints filed by the wife against the husband's parents. ‘You Too Committed Offence By Having Sex Outside Marriage’: Supreme Court Warns Married Woman Over Affair, Upholds Lover’s Bail.

Case Background and Next Steps

The dispute originated after a trial court awarded a one-time settlement of INR 6 lakh, which the husband paid. Dissatisfied, the wife approached the High Court seeking INR 30 lakh, but her plea was rejected. She subsequently moved the Supreme Court to ensure "just and fair" compensation. The Supreme Court has now reserved its order on the matter. The final judgment is expected to clarify how courts should verify income claims in an era where minimum wages and living costs have significantly outpaced the figures often cited in matrimonial litigation.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Mar 01, 2026 11:02 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).