Women Leave Job To Look After Family; Merely Because Wife Is Able Bodied & Is Capable Of Earning Livelihood Does Not Absolve Husband From Providing Her Maintenance: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that the fact that the wife is able bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband from providing maintenance to his wife and children.
The Court said that the Petitioner is insulting not only his wife but the entire womankind while contending that his wife is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law.
The Court was hearing a Criminal MC challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order. The Magistrate had directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of ₹30k per month to the respondent. Additionally, the Petitioner was ordered to pay ₹5L to the respondent for injuries, mental torture, and emotional distress, along with ₹3L in compensation, including ₹30k for litigation costs.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “The fact that the Respondent is able bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband not to provide maintenance to his wife and children. Indian women leave their jobs to look after the family, cater to the needs of their children, look after their husbands and his parents. The contention that the Respondent is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent herein but to the entire women kind.”
Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tiwary appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
The Respondent-wife sought maintenance, alleging abuse by the Petitioner-husband and claiming that he had an extramarital affair. She alleged that he abandoned her and their two children without financial support. She stated that the Petitioner was financially well-off, owning a business, properties, and vehicles, while she was unemployed and dependent. The Trial Court awarded maintenance and compensation. The Court rejected the Petitioner’s appeal, but the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, rejecting his claims. The Petitioner has challenged the trial Court decision in the present petition.
The Court observed, “The Apex Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman‟s sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.”
The Court mentioned the Apex Court decision in Apex Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) and quoted, “Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband…it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."
The Court said that the fact that the Respondent/Wife is capable of earning cannot work to her detriment.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Amit Chandi v. Aarti Chandi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7173)