Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition challenging the order directing the husband to pay collectively a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife; the Bench of Krishna S. Dixit, J.*, rejected the challenge and pointed out that Holy Quran and Hadith say that it is the duty of husband to look after his wife and children especially when they are in disablement. The Court further pointed out that the husband did not produce any material to show that his estranged wife is gainfully employed or that she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty lies on the shoulders of husband.
The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife are estranged couple. The wife filed a petition seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.27,000/- for herself and two children. The Judge of Family Court at Bengaluru vide order dated 16-12-2019 then directed the husband to pay collectively a sum of Rs.25,000 per month as maintenance, which was challenged before the High Court in the instant petition.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the maintenance amount is too much on the higher side, does not merit acceptance in these days when ‘bread is costlier than blood’.
Rejecting the petition for being devoid of merits, the Court cited Holy Quran and Hadith which outlines the duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children.
The Court further pointed out for invoking remedy under Art. 227 of the Constitution, there has to be a strong case for violation of rules of reason and justice has to be made out. The Court opined that in the instant case, there is not even a whisper for substantiating the said contention. Therefore, the impugned order of the Family Court does not merit a deeper examination in the jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
Lastly the Court noted that children of the estranged couple are suffering from disablement and disease. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse.
[Mohammad Amjad Pasha v. Naseema Banu, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 44, decided on 17-07-2023]
*Order by Justice Krishna S. Dixit
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Respondent 1: Irshad Ahmed K., Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
