Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Refuse To Maintain Wife Merely Due To His Unemployment: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that an able-bodied, young man cannot refuse to pay maintenance, citing financial constraints arising out of his unemployment.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "Therefore once there is no denial of the fact that the husband is an able bodied young man capable of earning, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation of maintaining of his wife equal to the status and strata. The mere fact that the petitioner/wife is earning some amount of money to survive, since she has been allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial home, cannot be a reason to deny maintenance, which is husband's social, legal and moral responsibility."
Background
The present application was filed against an order rejecting the petitioner's/wife's prayer for maintenance made under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner submitted that after their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, she requested an arrangement to permanently stay at her matrimonial home, but the husband/opposite party and his family members avoided the same.
While the petitioner and her parents insisted that the opposite party and his parents take her to her matrimonial home, the opposite party and his family members became furious, threatened and pressured the petitioner for mutual divorce.
It was stated that the petitioner repeatedly went to her matrimonial home at Taltala, Kolkata, but the husband/opposite party and his family members did not allow her to enter, and refused to return her stridhan articles.
She then filed an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., praying for Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance, along with a prayer for interim maintenance.
The trial court allowed the petitioner's prayer for interim maintenance and granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner. There was a spate of further litigation between the parties, along with a complaint under Section 498A IPC, which ended in acquittal for the husband and his family.
It was contended by the wife that she is legally married to the opposite party, and there is nothing to show that she voluntarily deserted her matrimonial home or that she has sufficient income to maintain herself.
It was stated that even if the petitioner-wife has a small earning, it cannot absolve the husband/opposite party from his moral as well as legal responsibility and obligation to maintain his wife, and the income of the petitioner at best could have some relevance for the purpose of determining the quantum of the maintenance.
It was noted that the impugned order refuses the wife's contentions on the ground that she has been earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and the husband/opposite party is an unemployed person, but failed to consider that employment does not necessarily imply that the woman is able to meet even the basic needs for herself.
The husband argued that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party was just registered and no such consent was taken from either family, which is reflected from the marriage certificate. The opposite party just put his signature on the papers and after registration of the marriage, both parties resumed living separately in their respective paternal home.
It is stated that the petitioner is a working lady and draws a huge salary, while the opposite party is unemployed as he has been sacked from his job.
Findings
Upon hearing the parties, the court noted that in the present case, the trial Judge, while refusing maintenance inspite of holding the petitioner's entitlement to get the same, merely weighed in on the alleged plea of unemployment by the husband and the meagre income of the wife, completely ignoring the principle of equal strata and lifestyle and that the husband cannot take benefit of his own wrong or wilful decision, as he had been sacked from his job due to his default.
Court noted that the husband, not being a disabled person, cannot remain unemployed unless he wilfully chooses to do so, and thus this would not entail "not having sufficient means” to maintain the wife.
"His decision to remain unemployed cannot be used as a shield against his legal obligation and also cannot be a ground for compelling the wife to survive her hardship ignoring the lifestyle and strata of the wife, which she is entitled to," the court said.
Court further stated that the mere earning of the wife does not render her ineligible to get maintenance.
It was thus held that the husband cannot use his unemployment as an excuse to not pay maintenance to the wife and thus the court ordered a monthly payment of Rs 4,000 to the wife.
Case: Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & anr
Case No: CRR 2556 of 2023