Married Man With Capacity To Earn Obligated To Maintain Wife & Children, Cannot Plead Penury: J&K&L High Court Reiterates
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that once a person enters into wedlock and decides to raise a family, he cannot turn around and say that he is not ready to perform his moral and legal obligation flowing out of the wedlock as he is in no mood to earn livelihood. A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul relied on Vikram Jamwal v. Geetanjali Rajput and another...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that once a person enters into wedlock and decides to raise a family, he cannot turn around and say that he is not ready to perform his moral and legal obligation flowing out of the wedlock as he is in no mood to earn livelihood.
A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul relied on Vikram Jamwal v. Geetanjali Rajput and another (2010) 1 JKJ 236 and observed,
"It is for the person to decide to marry or not to marry, but once a person decides to marry, he is duty bound to perform all the duties and discharge all obligations that the society and law expect and require him to discharge".
The bench was hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had challenged the order of Principal Sessions Judge as a Revisional Court, upholding the order passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which awarded maintenance to his wife and daughter (living separately from him).
The petitioner argued that the impugned mechanically fixed quantum of maintenance at an exorbitant rate without taking into consideration his liabilities, which after making all necessary deductions is around Rs. 12000/- only. He also submitted that he is ready to take care of their expenses, provided they join his company.
Adjudicating upon the matter, Justice Koul observed that it is settled law that the nature of duty cast on a person to maintain his wife, child/children and parents that sufficient means has been interpreted to include capacity to earn and as long as a person is able bodied with capacity to earn, he cannot escape his legal duty to maintain his wife, children and parents, who are unable to maintain themselves, on the ground that he does not actually have any income.
The Court also noted that the Petitioner had himself refused to take the respondents back and thus, they have sufficient ground for residing separately from the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition was found without any merit and was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title : Shashi Paul Singh Vs Gurmeet Paul & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 220