Orissa High Court: In a civil writ petition by the husband against the Family Court’s decision, whereby, he was directed to pay pedente lite maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and her child, the Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy*, J., dismissed the petition considering the factors such as- standard of living, social standing of the husband, his qualification, past employment in a reputed organization, and balancing the same with his requirement vis-a-vis the requirement of wife and the daughter of the party. The Court upheld that the Trial Court had not committed any illegality in awarding Rs.15,000/- per month.
The Court stated that a person who is well qualified and was also in a job earlier, but remains idle by quitting the job without any logic, only to shift or avoid the responsibility of maintenance of the wife cannot be appreciated in a civilised society.
The husband’s case was that he had resigned from his service due to the trauma inflicted by the wife and hence, he was jobless and could not pay such a high amount as pedente lite maintenance.
At the outset, the Court dealt with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’) and said that the objective behind Section 24 of the Act is intended to provide support to the spouse having no independent income sufficient and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, but the support for his/her requirement also implicitly includes the need of their children for bringing up and providing proper education to stand in the society. The Court noted that in Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, (2024) SCC Online SC 3678, the Supreme Court rejected the plea that Section 24 of the Act does not mean to provide maintenance to the children while awarding pendente lite maintenance to the wife.
The Court observed that spouses having high qualifications, but desirous to remain idle and not making any efforts to find out a source of livelihood should be discouraged. The Court relied on Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) SCC Online SC 1724, wherein, it was observed that even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn given his education and qualification should be taken into account.
The Court reiterated that to have an equitable determination of the financial support required to the wife and dependent child, the maintenance should be determined after considering the status and lifestyle of the parties, reasonable needs, educational qualification of the wife, so also her earning capacity as well as the financial standing. Obligation of the husband shall be taken into consideration to address the rising cost of living and inflation to ensure a standard living that is proportionate to the husband’s financial capacity and commensurate to the standard of his living and the standard of living of the wife and children were accustomed to before separation. However, the Court also pointed out that there cannot be any straight jacket formula for fixing the amount, but the quantum of maintenance must be subjective to each case and his dependent on various circumstance and factors and such factors may be the income of both the parties; their conduct during subsistence of the marriage; their individual social and financial status; their expense; their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents; the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during the subsistence of marriage, etc.
Regarding the husband’s contention of being unemployed, the Court stated that, “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 since law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self-made lazy idles.”
In the matter at hand, the Court also noted that the husband had sought custody of the child by showing him to have served at a renowned organization at the senior post and that he had sufficient means. The Court emphasised that spouses with high qualifications, taking plea of unemployment with no income, without any sincere efforts, need to be condemned. Hence, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision regarding the payment of maintenance and also for the grant of Rs. 10,000/- as litigating expenses.
[Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur, W.P.(Civil) No. 4283 of 2024, decided on: 04-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: S. Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent: A. Routray, Advocate
