Unfair To Generalise That Wives Are Breeding A Class Of Idle Women To Burden Husbands To Pay Maintenance: Orissa High Court

A bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, while dismissing a revision petition filed by a husband against a maintenance order passed against him, observed thus:

"Besides, it cannot have any universal application in all the cases that wife having high qualification is intentionally avoiding to work only to harass the husband with a intention to saddle the liability to pay maintenance to her, unless there is material evidence to that effect, inasmuch as in absence of any evidence of income and/or prospect to earn, it would be unfair to say that the wives are breeding a class of idle women to burden their husband".

Briefly put, the present petition was filed by G. Debendra Rao, challenging a 2019 order of the Family Court, Bargarh, in which he was directed to pay ₹5,000 per month each to his wife and daughter, totalling ₹10,000, from 2012.

Before the HC, the husband had argued that his wife was a qualified MA LLB, working as a teacher and LIC agent, and thus, she not entitled to maintenance. He also contended that his now-major daughter could not claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court said that while Section 125 CrPC limits maintenance for children to minors (except in cases of disability), Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 entitles an unmarried daughter to claim maintenance until marriage, provided she cannot sustain herself.

Furthermore, on the husband's plea of desertion, the Court noted that since he had remarried, the wife had a valid ground in law to live separately.

"If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him", the bench noted, referring to Section 125(3) CrPC.

Importantly, the Court found that although the wife was an advocate, there was no evidence to establish that she had sufficient income.

"It may so happen that a person may be enrolled as an Advocate, but he or she may not have engagement for days, months and years together", the Court said as it stressed that without proof of income, wife's claim for maintenance could not be denied.

Importantly, the bench also referred to the petitioner's income tax returns for 2016–2019, which showed he had sufficient means to provide for his wife and daughter.

The Court further noted that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, ₹5,000 each to the wife and daughter, was neither exorbitant nor excessive.

Accordingly, the husband's revision plea against the family court order was dismissed.