Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
Defence Of ‘No Resource’ Is Untenable When Maintenance Claimed Is For The Beneficiaries To Sustain: Kerala HC Dismisses Husband’s Plea Against Maintenance
|The Kerala High Court has held that the husband’s income is irrelevant for consideration when maintenance granted to the wife and children is barely sufficient for mere sustenance.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a husband’s challenge against an order of maintenance while holding that when maintenance claimed is “the most essential” for the beneficiaries to sustain, the defence of “no resource” is untenable.
The Court upheld the Family Court’s Order directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife and their four minor children (Respondents). The Court rejected the husband’s argument who contended that since he got remarried, had another child from that marriage, and was also in charge of his aged mother, his entire income cannot be used to pay maintenance to the Respondents.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Mb Snehalatha reiterated, “Our view, which is nothing novel – having been cemented by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the years - is firmly that, when the maintenance claimed is the most essential for the beneficiaries to sustain, the defence of “no resource” is untenable, particularly when the obligant is capable of earning, without any physical incapacitation.”
Advocate C.K. Sreejith represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Abdul Raoof Pallipath appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Family Court had awarded maintenance to the Respondents. The Husband challenged the quantum of maintenance, claiming it exceeded his financial capacity. He asserted that he was merely an employee in his brother’s shop and that his income was insufficient to fulfil the maintenance obligations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Kerala High Court explained that the defence of “no resource” was untenable because “otherwise, it would be open to the obligant not to work; or lie idle; or choose to earn solely for himself/herself and then impel the defence of lack of adequate resources.”
The Bench stated that this is impermissible in the constitutional and statutory Scheme as has been declared by the Supreme Court in Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly, wherein basic maintenance was declared to be a part of a fundamental right to life.
“Ending a marriage is traumatic for most; and it is exacerbated for women who have to navigate settlement terms and follow up on sums for maintenance of themselves and their children…In a divorce, large number of - if not most - women still continue to be home makers, thus pushing them to a spot. In most cases, claims for maintenance - not merely for the wife, but also for the children – are met with obdurate resistance,” the Bench remarked.
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that his remarriage and responsibilities toward a second family limited his capacity to support the respondents.
Consequently, the Court held that “the primary focus of the argument of the petitioner is that he has another family, because he chose to marry again and have a child in it; and hence that he cannot spend his income for the benefit of the respondents herein alone. It is needless to say that such an argument can never find favour with us because, it was the choice of the petitioner to marry again and have another family; and surely he should, therefore, be bound to its consequences and cannot be allowed to resile from his obligations to the respondents herein.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: X v. Y & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:92969)