The Orissa High Court dismissed a husband’s plea challenging a maintenance order, observing that an educated and able-bodied man cannot avoid supporting his wife and minor children by citing financial hardship, as he is presumed capable of earning and fulfilling his legal responsibility.
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order passed in favour of his wife. The court reaffirmed that an educated and able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning enough to support his spouse and cannot avoid his legal responsibility by citing financial difficulties.
Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed that financial hardship cannot be used as a ground to escape the obligation of maintenance if the husband is physically fit and qualified enough to earn a livelihood.
The case came before the High Court after the husband challenged a family court order directing him to pay Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The petitioner, who possesses an MBA degree along with a Master’s in Engineering, argued that he was unemployed and had no present source of income. He further claimed that his wife, working as an Assistant Revenue Inspector in Cuttack with a monthly salary of around Rs 31,000, was financially independent and therefore not entitled to maintenance.
The family court, in its September 2024 order, had taken note of the husband’s earlier employment with reputed companies such as Wipro and Harman. It had also recorded that he previously ran a variety store. The family court stressed that it was the husband’s duty to look after his wife and ensure that she maintained a standard of living comparable to his own.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rita Singh argued that the family court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence relating to the husband’s financial condition and the wife’s independent income. The husband contended that his unemployment should exempt him from paying the maintenance amount, which had been ordered with effect from January 2020.
However, the High Court observed that the husband failed to place any “positive evidence” on record to dispute his past employment history or establish why he was presently incapable of earning.
Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo reiterated the settled legal position concerning a husband’s obligation to maintain his family.
The court stated:
“It is apparent that the present petitioner husband, being able-bodied, has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife; he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough.”
The court further noted that the husband had not made any genuine effort before the family court to demonstrate “cogent grounds” explaining his inability to earn due to circumstances beyond his control.
Justice Sahoo further observed:
“It is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minor children, and he cannot plead inability to maintain his wife due to financial constraint as long as he is able-bodied, educated or capable of earning.”
The High Court also referred to observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the Shamima Farooqui case, noting that maintenance amounts cannot be arbitrarily reduced without proper judicial reasoning and application of mind.
Finding no valid legal basis to interfere with the family court’s decision, the Orissa High Court dismissed the revision petition. The court ultimately upheld the maintenance order, ruling that the husband’s educational qualifications and physical fitness made him legally responsible for supporting his wife despite his claim of having “no income.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE