Not Necessary That Wife Having High Qualification Is Intentionally Avoiding Work To Harass Husband For Maintenance: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court said that it cannot have any universal application in all the cases that wife having high qualification is intentionally avoiding to work only to harass the husband for maintenance.

A Revision Petition was filed by a husband challenging the Order of the Family Court by which the Judge allowed a Petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and awarded maintenance.

A Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy remarked, “… it cannot have any universal application in all the cases that wife having high qualification is intentionally avoiding to work only to harass the husband with a intention to saddle the liability to pay maintenance to her, unless there is material evidence to that effect, inasmuch as in absence of any evidence of income and/or prospect to earn, it would be unfair to say that the wives are breeding a class of idle women to burden their husband.”

The Bench observed that the husband has sufficient income and is liable to provide maintenance to his wife and daughter who have no sufficient means to maintain themselves.

Advocate B.P.B. Bahali appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocate A. Pradhan appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

Brief Facts

The marriage between the Petitioner-husband and the Opposite Party-wife was solemnized in 2001 according to their caste and customs and after their marriage, they were blessed with a girl child. However, owing to dissension and rancor between them with regard to allegation of demand of further dowry articles, the wife reported the matter to Mahila Sammittee and thereafter, the husband allegedly deserted his wife and daughter in 2004. He then filed a matrimonial case against the wife before the Civil Judge for dissolution of their marriage and such proceeding was decreed ex-parte. Subsequently, the wife filed a Petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed for default in 2012. She then filed another Petition for grant of maintenance. It was averred that the husband is an Advocate earning Rs. 20,000/- per month out of his profession and he also earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from his Hero Honda showroom and Rs. 50,000/- per month from house rent.

However, the husband objected by saying that his wife is a qualified lady with M.A. LL.B. Degree and she is earning more than him and she being an LIC Agent & Teacher in private school with landed property and building at heart of Bargarh town, does not need any money to maintain herself or their daughter. He also claimed that she voluntarily deserted him without any cause and hence, not entitled to be maintained and he is not having any landed property. He further prayed that his old and ailing mother being dependent on him with his two younger brothers, he is not able to pay the maintenance. The Family Court disposed of the maintenance proceeding and directed the husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- each to his wife and daughter i.e., total Rs. 10,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, the husband was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is no more res integra that it is the substance, but not the form under which a party applies to the Court and appropriate relief, to which such party is entitled to, should not be withheld merely because the petition has been filed under wrong nomenclature. Accordingly, the plea for maintenance by major unmarried daughter is unsustainable as advanced does not stand to the legal scrutiny and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court on such plea of the revision-petitioner, provided it is established that such daughter is unable to maintain herself out of his own earning or other properties.”

The Court added that the Opposite Parties are not having sufficient means to maintain themselves out of their own earnings and properties, and they being the wife and major daughter of the Petitioner are entitled to maintenance, but the entitlement of the major daughter is till she remains unmarried and on consideration of present day market cost and standard of living of OPs which must commensurate to the standard of living of revision petitioner, it cannot be said that the grant of maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month each is neither exorbitant or on higher side, even after taking into consideration of the income of an Advocate of the stature Opposite Parties who is considered to be not a serious practitioner and, therefore, the impugned Order calls for no interference by the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition and confirmed the impugned Order.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ & Another (Case Number: RPFAM No.18 of 2021)

Click here to read/download the Judgment