Husband Being An Able Bodied Man Is Expected To Work: Karnataka HC Rejects Contention Of Unemployment, Upholds Order To Pay Maintenance
|The Karnataka High Court held that the husband who was ordered to pay maintenance to his wife, being an able-bodied individual, is expected to work and fulfill his duty to provide financial support to his wife.
In this case, the petitioner, who is the husband, challenged an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife had filed an application seeking interim maintenance from the husband, and the Family Court, after considering the assets and liabilities presented, granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife.
A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “The submission of the learned counsel that the husband has lost his job and cannot be directed to pay maintenance is noted only to be rejected, as the husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and take care of the wife.”
Advocate Nagarathna S K appeared for the Petitioner.
The petitioner's main contention was that he had lost his job, and the court's conclusion that he earns Rs.50,000/- was erroneous. The petitioner argued that, given his current unemployment status, it is difficult for him to comply with the maintenance order.
Upon careful consideration, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument. The Court emphasized that the husband, being an able-bodied individual, was expected to work and fulfill his duty to provide financial support to his wife. The Court cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anju Garg And Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg, highlighting the obligation of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and children.
The Court noted that the Family Court had conducted the proceedings appropriately and in line with the objectives of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the prevention of vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of job loss as a reason to avoid maintenance payments, stating that the husband is obliged to earn by legitimate means.
Drawing parallels with a similar case, the Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, affirming the order of the Family Court to grant maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife. The Court said that any interference with the maintenance order would go against the principles outlined in the relevant legal provisions and established by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the maintenance order in favor of the wife was upheld.
Cause Title: Pradeep N v. Keerthana S, [2023:KHC:37796]
Click here to read/download Order