Wife can’t sit idle and seek entire maintenance from husband if working earlier: Karnataka High Court

A wife who was in a job earlier, can’t sit at home and seek entire maintenance from her estranged husband to keep her life going smoothly instead she should also make efforts to earn something for her livelihood and thus reducing dependency on maintenance, the Karnataka High Court recently said while rejecting a woman’s plea by a woman challenging reduction in the maintenance and compensation amount grant to her by a Magistrate court.

The Court said this while hearing an appeal by a woman and her child challenging the order of the sessions court (appellate court) of reducing the maintenance granted to the woman from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000 and the compensation amount from ₹3,00,000 to ₹2,00,000.

Single-Judge (Justice Rajendra Badamikar) observed that the woman was engaged in a job before her marriage, and also didn’t give any explanation stating why she was currently unable to work.

The Court also noted, “She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.”

In her arguments, the petitioner said that the compensation provided was insufficient and that the appellate court had reduced the maintenance without offering adequate justifications.

Additionally, it was also found that the wife expressed that she don’t want to live with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law.

Moreover, the Court also noted that the husband runs provision stores and bears the responsibility of his mother and unmarried sister.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the woman’s plea.

The Court eventually noted, “Looking to the above facts and circumstances and considering the conduct of petitioner No.1, the order of maintenance awarded by the First Appellate Court by reducing from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 does not call for any interference. As regards the compensation amount, there is no material evidence as to on what basis the compensation was quantified. However, it was not challenged and the question of interfering with the said order does not arise at all.”

Advocate Javed S appeared for the petitioners and on the other hand, advocate GS Patil represented the respondents.

Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/wife-cannot-sit-idle-seek-entire-maintenance-husband-karnataka-high-court