Unemployment No Excuse For Able-Bodied Man, Must Find Avocation To Maintain Wife & Children: Karnataka High Court

Update: 2023-02-13 05:30 GMT
story

The Karnataka High Court has 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. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while rejecting a petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting his estranged wife and child maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 per...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Karnataka High Court has 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.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while rejecting a petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting his estranged wife and child maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband had 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. Further, with great difficulty, the arrears according to him have been cleared as on date.

Following which the bench said ,

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 taking 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.

Further referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg, the bench said “Acceptance of the submissions of the petitioner would amount to rendering a finding contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court.

Thus, it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: PUNARVASU @ VASU And INDRANI S

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20737 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 54

Date of order: 01-02-2023

Appearance: R. Kumar, Advocate for petitioner

Trivikram S, Advocate for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Tags:    

Similar News