Well-Qualified Husband Quitting Job To Avoid Paying Maintenance To Wife Can't Be Appreciated In Civilized Society: Orissa HC
The Orissa High Court has remarked that a well-qualified husband, who quits his job to sit idle and remains unemployed in order to deprive his wife of maintenance, cannot be appreciated in a civilised society. While deciding a maintenance dispute, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy further observed –“Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification...
The Orissa High Court has remarked that a well-qualified husband, who quits his job to sit idle and remains unemployed in order to deprive his wife of maintenance, cannot be appreciated in a civilised society. While deciding a maintenance dispute, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy further observed –
“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 inasmuch as law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles.”
Case Background
The opposite party-wife of the petitioner had initiated a proceeding before the Family Court at Jabalpur under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act ('the Act') in the year 2016 seeking a decree of nullity of marriage and/or dissolution marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
The wife moved the said Court also under Section 24 of the Act for grant of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses in favour of herself as well as her child. However, the aforesaid proceeding was transferred to Judge, Family Court, Rourkela by the Supreme Court.
In her disclosure affidavit, the wife admitted to be working as a teacher in a private school and earning Rs. 23,334/- per month. On the contrary, the petitioner-husband stated that currently he is unemployed and does not have any source of income. In his disclosure affidavit, the petitioner stated that he is unemployed since 01.03.2023.
After giving consideration to all the factors, the Family Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the OP-wife and their child as pedente lite maintenance w.e.f. 22.04.2017 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-husband filed this writ petition.
Court's Observations
The Court, at the outset, took note of the fact that the petitioner-husband has a qualification of BE (Power Electronics) and previously, he was in an employment. Law will definitely come to the rescue of a person, it said, who after making sincere efforts fails in his pursuit to earn to maintain himself and his family members.
“A person who is well qualified and was also in job earlier, but remains idle by quitting the job without any logic only to shift or avoiding the responsibility of maintenance of the wife cannot be appreciated in a civilized society,” it observed.
Justice Satapathy referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 485 which held that even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account.
“In other words, spouses having high qualification, but desirous to remain idle and not making any efforts for the purpose of finding out the source of livelihood should be discouraged,” it added.
For the purpose of an equitable determination of financial support required to the wife and dependent child, the Court said, the maintenance should be determined after considering the status and life style of the parties and their reasonable needs, educational qualification of the wife so also her earning capacity as well as the financial standing.
The Court further held that factors like rising cost of living and inflation should be taken into account 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 which they were accustomed to prior to the separation.
Can children be granted maintenance U/S 24 of the Act?
A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that no maintenance amount can be claimed for the child in application under Section 24 of the Act, which deals merely with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings in favour of spouse only.
However, referring to Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 969 it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party that not only the wife, but also the minor children are entitled to the pendente lite maintenance under the said provision, notwithstanding the fact that the children have not been explicitly referred to therein in Section 24 of the Act.
The Court accepted the aforesaid argument and held that an inclusive interpretation must be given to the provision which would cover even the children within its ambit.
“The objective behind Sec.24 of the Act is intended to provide support to the spouse having no independent income sufficient for his/her support 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. Further, Sec.26 of the Act also provides the Court to pass such interim order for making provision for the maintenance and education of minor children consistently with their wishes and such order can also be passed in pending proceeding in terms of the proviso to Sec.26 of the Act.”
In the present case, it appeared that although the husband claimed to be unemployed and not having independent income, but he filed application seeking custody of the child by showing himself to have served at a renowned organization at senior level, possessing sufficient means. However, he took a plea of joblessness while admitting to have high qualification.
“At the cost of repetition, this Court with annoyance needs it to emphasize that spouses having high qualification taking plea of unemployment with no income without any sincere efforts needs to be condemned,” the Court stressed.
Therefore, considering the standard of living and the social standing of the husband along with his qualification and past employment in a reputed organization and balancing the same with his own requirement vis-à-vis the requirement of his wife and child, the Court found no fault in the order of the Family Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 4283 of 2024
Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Subham Sharma, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Achyutananda Routray, Advocate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
