Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition wherein a wife challenged the maintenance order of Rs 18,000 per month whereas she had sought an interim maintenance of Rs 36,000 per month; the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, stated that every case concerning maintenance, must be considered on the strength of the merit in those cases. It was noted that in the instant case, the wife admittedly quit the job to take care of the children and taking care of the children cannot be said to be taking care of mere existence as it is shrouded by countless responsibilities and necessary expenditure from time to time. “The wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock”.
Hence the Court allowed the petition and declared that the wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs 36,000 per month.
Background: The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) got married in 2012. Before her marriage, the wife was working as Lecturer. However, after the birth of 2 children from the wedlock, the husband asked the wife to quit her job so that the children are taken care of.
The couple’s relationship went smoothly along for 8 years after which the cracks appeared, and the pair applied for dissolution of marriage in 2020. The wife filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance of Rs 36,000 urging that it is difficult for her to maintain herself and the children. However, she was granted only half the maintenance that she sought i.e. Rs 18,000 only.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated verdict the wife then filed the instant petition.
Contentions: Counsel representing the wife argued that the husband is a Manager in Canara Bank and earns close to Rs 90,000 as salary. The wife though qualified and working, the husband made her leave the job to take care of the children. Therefore, she would need maintenance as sought for. The counsel further submitted that school fees and other incidental expenses of the children are not being met by the husband and the husband every time dodges the issue of payment of money.
Per contra, the counsel for the husband contended that the petitioner was not a dutiful wife and did not take care of the husband’s needs. It was further submitted that the husband is in a job which is fluctuating which he may lose it at any time.
It was also submitted that the wife was working as a lecturer before marriage and for a little while after marriage; therefore, she is qualified to work, and must work and earn money and not depend on maintenance that is to be paid by the husband.
The husband further contended that he has to maintain his aged mother and in the teeth of an inconsistent job, the wife is not entitled to maintenance to lead a luxurious life.
Court’s Assessment: Perusing the facts and contentions of the case at hand, the Court pointed out that the husband is an employee at Canara Bank, a Government of India undertaking, designated in the cadre of Manager with a salary of an officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II.
Taking note of the Husband’s designation, the Court pointed out that his job not such that can be taken away by issuance of pink slips as done by private employers. “He is in a job that offers security of tenure. The pay that he receives can never be reduced; it can only grow”. Therefore, the Court termed the submissions of the husband concerning the inconsistency of his job to be misleading and mischievous.
Taking note of several precedents set by the Supreme Court, the Bench stated that maintenance has to be awarded to the wife and children which would be commensurate to the cost of living or continued living as they lived along with the husband. Therefore, directing maintenance only at Rs18,000/- per month, as against Rs 36,000/- per month, was on the ground that the wife is qualified and can make a living by earning self, was erroneous.
The Court clarified that it is not deciding upon the claims of the husband and the wife vis-à-vis their discordant relationship as that is not the issue in the case at hand. However, the Court significantly observed that a dutiful mother is on a higher pedestal than a dutiful wife.
The Court also pointed out that the wife was asked to leave her job as a Lecturer after the birth of her of her first child and she quit her job completely after the second child was born and became a homemaker and dutiful mother.
The Court pointed out that taking care of children is a responsibility with countless necessary expenses. “The wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock. The husband, cannot be seen to contend that the wife is lazing around and not earning money to take care of the children, as observed hereinabove, taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole-time job. Therefore, such submissions made by the counsel for the husband, is noted only to be rejected as, to say the least, they are preposterous”.
With the afore-stated assessment, the Court thus allowed the wife’s petition.
[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 15, decided on 28-02-2024]
*Order by Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For petitioners- BR Srinivasa Gowda, Adv
For respondent- Anil R., Adv
