Orissa High Court: Well-Qualified Husband Quitting Job Without Any Logic Only To Shift Wife’s Maintenance Responsibility Not Appreciated In Civilized Society
The Orissa High Court dismissed a Writ Petition of a husband against the Family Court's Order, which directed him to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and daughter.
The Orissa High Court remarked that a well-qualified husband remaining idle by quitting job without any logic, only to shift the responsibility of maintenance towards his wife, cannot be appreciated in a civilized society.
The Court was deciding a Writ Petition preferred by a husband, challenging the Order of the Family Court, which directed him to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and daughter.
A Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy observed, “Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification and prospect to earn is other thing and if a husband being well qualified sufficient enough to earn sits idle only to shift the burden on the wife and expects ‘dole’ by remaining entangled in litigation should not only be deprecated, but also be discouraged inasmuch as law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles. A person who is well qualified and was also in job earlier, but remains idle by quitting the job without any logic only to shift or avoiding the responsibility of maintenance of the wife cannot be appreciated in a civilized society.”
The Bench added that the law will definitely come to the rescue of such a person who after making sincere efforts has failed in their pursuit to earn to maintain himself or herself together with his/her family members.
Advocate Subham Sharma appeared on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband while Advocate Achyutananda Routray appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party/Wife.
Factual Background
The Family Court had directed the Petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to his wife (Opposite Party) and her daughter as pedentelite maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to them in an Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The counsel for the husband submitted that the wife was guilty of protracting litigation for ulterior motive by filing different applications.
It was further submitted that the husband had resigned from his service for the alleged trauma inflicted by his wife, and, thereby, he being income-less was unable to pay such a high amount of maintenance. On the other hand, the counsel for the wife contended that the husband is not only a qualified person, but also an Electrical Engineer by profession with 32 years of experience in a reputed organization and he thereby may be directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month to his wife and daughter.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Many a time, the attitude of the spouses is most important and when such instinct of such spouse is only to fight and frustrate the efforts of others is quite deplorable. In other words, spouses having high qualification, but desirous to remain idle and not making any efforts for the purpose of finding out the source of livelihood should be discouraged.”
The Court further reiterated that even if the husband claims to have no source of income, but his ability to earn given his education and qualification is to be taken into account.
“On a consideration of the principles settled by the Apex Court and applying the factors of the present case pragmatically to the provision of Sec. 24 of the Act, it appears that the proceeding between the parties is pending since 2016, but although the husband claims to be unemployed and not having independent income, but has filed application seeking custody of the child by showing him to have served at renowned organization at senior post and sufficient means”, it also noted.
The Court observed that the husband has not disputed his qualification, but has taken a plea of “joblessness”. It emphasised that the spouses having high qualification taking plea of unemployment with no income without any sincere efforts needs to be condemned.
“In the backdrop of standard of living and the social standing of the husband together with his qualification and past employment in reputed organization and balancing the same with his own requirement vis-à-vis the requirement of OP-wife and the daughter of the party on the admitted income of the OP-wife, this Court considers that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in awarding Rs.15,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner-husband to OP-wife for the maintenance of OP-wife and the daughter which by any standard cannot be considered to be unreasonable”, it held.
The Court added that the grant of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the wife cannot be termed as arbitrary or excessive. It, therefore, concluded that the Writ Petition by the husband merits no consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Case Number: W.P.(C) NO.4283 of 2024)
