Unemployed Husband Cannot Shy Away From Responsibility Of Maintaining His Wife & Daughter: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that a husband cannot “shy away” from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and minor daughter under the garb that he has lost his employment.
The Dharwad Bench upheld the family court's decision to grant interim maintenance to the wife and her minor daughter despite the husband’s claim of unemployment.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “In the present day, we are all burdened with the plaguing effects of inflation. The cost of living has also significantly risen owing to the same. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that the wife has to not only sustain a life with the granted maintenance but also contest and appear in the ongoing litigation. Factoring in all these costs and expenses, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance granted by the Family Court is reasonable.”
Advocate Nagaraj J. Appannanavar represented the petitioner.
The husband had filed a writ petition to challenge the maintenance order issued by the Family Court. He argued that he was currently unemployed and claimed that he was not in a position to pay maintenance as he had no independent source of income.
Despite these claims, the family court took note of the fact that the husband’s family owned a commercial complex and declined to entertain the defence set-up by him.
The High Court pointed out that the cost of living had significantly increased owing to the plaguing effects of inflation, calling the maintenance amount granted as reasonable. It was further pointed out that the wife had to not only sustain a life with the granted maintenance but also contest and appear in the ongoing litigation.
“Be that as it may, if petitioner has deserted the wife irrespective of his financial status, he is bound to maintain his wife and minor children. The petitioner under the garb that he has lost his employment, cannot shy away from his responsibility of maintaining the wife and minor daughter. Interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor daughter is not exorbitant,” the Court held.
Consequently, “factoring in all these costs and expenses,” the Court was of the opinion that the maintenance granted by the family court was reasonable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: A v. M & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:7013)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Nagaraj J. Appannanavar
