Objective Of Alimony Is To Ensure Dependent Spouse's Financial Security And Cannot Be Construed As Punishment For Other Spouse: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the objective of granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse was not reduced to destitution or vagrancy, and not as a punishment to the other spouse.
The Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, “The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance..."
Advocate Dildar Shiralli appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Irshad Ahmed K appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, a Writ Petition was filed challenging the impugned order of the Family Court, wherein the Court directed Petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance to his estranged wife (Respondent) and two children. The Petitioner contended that he did not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount and that the amount was too high. The Respondent contended that the maintenance amount was justified given the circumstances of the case, such as the fact that the wife was not gainfully employed and that one of the children was handicapped.
The Court rejected the Petitioner’s claim of not having sufficient means to pay maintenance and emphasized that the primary duty of providing financial support lies with the Petitioner/husband. The Court placed reliance on the Holy Quran and Hadith, which reads, “it is the duty of husband to look after his wife & children especially when they are in disablement".
The Court further noted, "No material is produced to show that the Respondent-wife is gainfully employed or that she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty lies on the shoulders of petitioner".
The Court held that the maintenance order was a product of the statutory discretion of the Court and therefore, to invoke a writ remedy under Article 227, a strong case must be made that the order violates the rules of reason and justice. In this case, no evidence was produced to support such a claim.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the Petition.
Cause Title: Mohammed Amjad Pasha v Naseema Banu