The Karnataka High Court has ruled that directing a wife to pay maintenance to an able-bodied husband who does not have any disability or infirmity would be an encouragement of idleness.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made it clear that “Merely because Section 24 of (Hindu Marriage) Act is gender neutral for grant of maintenance, it would be promoting idleness notwithstanding the fact that the husband has no impediment or handicap to earn.”
The judicial panel made this statement while upholding a decision by the family court, which awarded the wife maintenance of Rs 10,000 and litigation expenses of Rs 25,000, while rejecting the husband’s application for maintenance of Rs 200,000 and litigation expenses of Rs 30,000 from the wife. The husband had argued that he had become unemployed due to the outbreak of Covid-19 and had been unable to find work for the past two years, thus he should not be responsible for providing maintenance to the wife, but rather the wife should provide maintenance to him.
Additionally, the husband argued that the wife’s parents are financially well-off and that the wife had initiated several legal proceedings against him and his family members, therefore, he should not have to bear the expenses of those litigations.
The bench considering the records observed “The contention that the petitioner has no job and has no means to maintain himself and, therefore, is not in a position to maintain the wife and in turn wants maintenance from the wife, is unacceptable as it is fundamentally flawed.”
Following which it held “Merely because he has lost his job on the onset of Covid19, it cannot be held that he is incapable of earning. Therefore, it can be irrefutably concluded that the husband by his own conduct has decided to lead a leisurely life by seeking maintenance from the hands of the wife.”
It added “In the considered view of this Court, such an application cannot be granted, as the husband cannot afford to incapacitate himself and sustain an application under Section 24 of the Act to claim maintenance from the hands of the husband. This would be an anathema to the spirit of Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the husband cannot seek any maintenance unless he would demonstrate such a disability either physical or mental which incapacitates him from earning money by finding a job for himself.”
Noting that it is the duty of an able bodied husband to maintain himself, the wife and the child, if any, the bench opined “‘It is better to wear out, than rust out.”
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: XYZ And ABC
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24226 OF 2022
Date of Order: 10-01-2023
Appearance: Advocate Shivaraju M K for petitioner; Advocate Madhu R for respondent.
