Justice G Rajasuriya said the husband cannot claim that he was poor, in order to dodge his responsibility of providing monthly maintenance to his wife.
"A husband has to take care of his wife somehow or other even if he is jobless," the Judge.
He was dismissing a civil revision petition filed by the man challenging the March 3 last order of family court, before which the couple have filed divorce petition, directing him to pay Rs 2,000 as interim maintenance.
The Judge also rejected a petition by the woman seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance to Rs 7,000.
The man had pleaded that he did not have the source to pay the maintenance ordered by the lower court.
His wife said the maintenance ordered by the court was too low.
In his order, the Judge said: "A hale and healthy man is expected to work to maintain himself and his dependants. He has to maintain his wife who is incapable of maintaining herself. Somehow or other husband should maintain."
Rejecting the prayer for enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs 2,000 granted by the lower court, he said the plea was justifiable if there was clinching evidence to prove that the husband was well off.
The petitioner did not produce any such evidence to prove that her husband had enough money, he observed and confirmed the maintenance amount granted by the lower court.
Besides, the Judge also directed the man to provide Rs 3,000 to his wife for paying the cost of litigation.
The Judge directed the family court to dispose the divorce petition, pending since 2007, in three months.