The Orissa High Court criticized husbands who deliberately remain idle to evade paying maintenance to their wives and children. The court emphasized that such actions must be condemned. In a previous ruling, the same judge had also disapproved of wives who stay unemployed solely to claim maintenance.
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court stated that well-qualified individuals who choose to remain idle to evade paying maintenance to their wives and children deserve strong criticism.
Justice G. Satapathy remarked that while the law can assist those who have genuinely struggled to find employment, it cannot support those who opt for idleness to hinder the efforts of others.
He expressed,
“Remaining unemployed is one thing, and sitting idle with qualifications and the potential to earn is another. If a husband, who is qualified enough to earn, chooses to remain idle solely to shift the burden onto his wife and expects support while entangled in litigation, this should not only be condemned but also discouraged. The law never aids the indolent and does not aim to create an army of self-made lazy individuals. A person who is well-qualified and previously employed but decides to quit without justification, solely to avoid the responsibility of maintaining his wife, cannot be condoned in a civilized society.”
Notably, Justice Satapathy had also criticized wives who remain unemployed solely to receive maintenance from their husbands in a judgment last month.
Also Read: Alimony And Maintenance Is Tax-Deductible Or Not?
The opposite party, the petitioner’s wife, initiated proceedings in the Family Court at Jabalpur in 2016 under Section 11 in conjunction with Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of nullity or dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
She also filed a motion under Section 24 of the Act for pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses for herself and their child. This case subsequently transferred to the Judge of the Family Court in Rourkela by the Supreme Court.
In her disclosure affidavit, the wife acknowledged that she was employed as a teacher at a private school, earning Rs.23,334 per month. In contrast, the petitioner-husband claimed to be unemployed and without any income, stating in his affidavit that he had been without work since March 1, 2023.
After considering all relevant factors, the Family Court ordered the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.15,000 per month in pendente lite maintenance to the wife and child, effective from April 22, 2017, along with Rs. 10,000 for litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner-husband subsequently filed a writ petition.
The husband argued that he had resigned from his job due to the distress caused by his wife, leaving him without the means to pay maintenance. He contended that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not provide for maintenance for children, yet the family court had considered his daughter’s needs. As a result, he requested the High Court to reduce the maintenance amount to Rs.5,000.
In contrast, the wife informed the Court that the husband was well-qualified, holding a degree in electrical engineering with 32 years of experience in a reputable organization.
The High Court dismissed the husband’s argument regarding Section 24, stating that the provision’s purpose implicitly includes addressing the needs and education of children.
The Court noted that the wife had filed for divorce in 2016 and subsequently sought pendente lite maintenance. The husband, by his own admission, had been unemployed only since March 2023, and he also claimed to be supporting his sick father.
The Court remarked that, based on its experience, spouses in matrimonial disputes often do not reveal their actual incomes. It also highlighted that the husband was sufficiently qualified and experienced to secure employment.
The Court stated,
“At the cost of repetition, this Court with annoyance needs to emphasize that spouses having high qualifications who claim unemployment without making sincere efforts need to be condemned,”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the husband’s plea.
The husband represented by advocate S. Sharma, while advocate A. Routray represented the wife.
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
