Unemployment Is Not An Excuse For Able-Bodied Man For Not Maintaining His Wife & Children, Should Find Avocation: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on 3rd March, 2023 made it clear that an able bodied man has to take care of his wife and child even, by finding an avocation, if he has none. This was in the case of PUNARVASU @ VASU V. INDRANI S (WRIT PETITION NO. 20737 OF 2021) and this is presided over by a division bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This wp is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent-wife, the two get married on 24.11.2014 and the relationship turning sore, are before the concerned Court seeking annulment of marriage. It transpires that the respondent-wife has instituted several proceedings against the husband for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Later, the respondent-wife files a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the hands of the husband, the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objections on 18.09.2021. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned dated 18.09.2021 directs Rs.6,000/- maintenance to be paid to the wife and Rs.4,000/- maintenance to be paid to the child, which is born from the wedlock, who at that point in time was 2 years old. This Court entertaining the petition had granted an interim order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.7,500/- as against Rs.10,000/- which would be subject to the result of the subject petition and therefore, the petitioner has paid Rs.7,500/- to the wife from the date of the interim order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he is not in a position to pay any maintenance to the wife as he is himself suffering from several ailments and is not earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month for him to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the wife and the child.
JUDGEMENT:
The court contended that “The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is not in a position to even pay Rs.10,000, maintenance sans countenance, as the petitioner who is an able-bodied man has to take care of the wife and the child, if he has no avocation, by finding an avocation.”
It added “The amount Rs.6,000 and Rs.4,000 to the wife and the child is not so exorbitant for the petitioner has to wash off his responsibility of tak ing care of the wife and his child.” Rejecting the submission of the husband that he was suffering from certain liver diseases the bench said “No document is produced to demonstrate that he is suffering from certain liver diseases, which does not permit him to work at all.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRATIKSHYA P. BEURA