Taking Care Of Children Is A Whole Time Job; A Dutiful Mother Is On A Higher Pedestal Than A Dutiful Wife: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court while enhancing the amount of maintenance in a case, has said that a dutiful mother is on a higher pedestal than a dutiful wife.
The Court was deciding a writ petition filed by a woman who sought quashing of an order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and claimed higher maintenance.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The other submission is that the 1st petitioner/wife is not a dutiful wife. While this Court would not enter upon the claims of the husband and the wife on discordant relationship between them, as that is not the issue in the case at hand, but would consider it germane to observe that a dutiful mother is on a higher pedestal than a dutiful wife.”
The Bench further observed that the husband cannot be seen to contend that the wife is lazing around and not earning money to take care of the children because taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole-time job.
Advocate B.R. Srinivasa Gowda represented the petitioners while Advocate Anil R. represented the respondent.
Factual Background -
The parties got married in 2012 and they had two children born from the wedlock. The relationship between the two floundered and on floundering of the relationship, both approached the Family Court. The wife filed an application invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) seeking grant of interim maintenance at Rs. 36,000/- per month. The concerned Court, after analyzing assets and liabilities statements produced by both the husband and the wife, ordered maintenance at Rs. 18,000/- per month. The wife being aggrieved by the said maintenance amount granted, complained that she was entitled to maintenance at Rs. 36,000- but the concerned Court granted half of what was sought for.
The High Court in the above regard said, “… maintenance has to be awarded to the wife and children which would be commensurate to the cost of living or continued living as they lived along with the respondent. Therefore, the concerned Court has undoubtedly fallen in error in directing maintenance only at `18,000/- per month, as against `36,000/- per month, as was sought on the ground that the wife is qualified and can make a living by earning self.”
The Court added that the contention of the counsel for the respondent/husband that the wife is not dutiful towards the husband; was throughout quarrelsome or his job is inconsistent are all submissions which have to be rejected on the face of them.
“The petitioner is an employee at Canara Bank, a Government of India undertaking working in the cadre of Manager – an Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II and the salary of an officer under Middle Management Grade Scale-II is beyond `70,000/-. It is not a job that can be taken away like how pink slips are issued by private employers, who sometimes practice the role of hire and fire, nor the petitioner is bound by the principle of last come first go. He is in a job that offers security of tenure. The pay that he receives can never be reduced; it can only grow. Therefore, those submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/husband are to be rejected as misleading and mischievous”, it noted.
The Court further took note of the fact that on the birth of the first child, the wife was asked to leave the job of a Teacher to take care of the child and then the second child was born, therefore, the wife completely quit the employment only to take care of the children and became a homemaker and a dutiful mother taking care of her children.
“All was well till the relationship turned sore and till the maintenance is sought. Once the maintenance is sought, the husband now alleges that though the wife is qualified, she is not willing to work and earn money and wants to live on the maintenance that the husband pays. … It is trite law that merely because the wife is qualified she is barred from seeking any maintenance. Every case will have to be considered on the strength of the merit obtaining in those cases. The wife-mother admittedly has quit the job to take care of the children and taking care of the children cannot be taking care of mere existence. It is shrouded by countless responsibilities and necessary expenditure from time to time”, it also observed.
The Court remarked that the wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock. It, therefore, concluded that the submissions made by the counsel for the husband are preposterous.
“It is declared that the 1st petitioner/wife is entitled to maintenance at `36,000/- per month as was sought for in the application. Arrears of maintenance if any, shall be cleared by the respondent/husband within a time frame that will be fixed by the concerned Court”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, modified the impugned order, and enhanced the maintenance amount.
Cause Title- ABC & Ors. v. XYZ
