Orissa HC On Maintenance Responsibility
The Orissa High Court has ruled that a well-qualified husband who quits his job to avoid paying maintenance cannot be excused. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy emphasized that sitting idle despite having qualifications and job prospects is unacceptable in a proper society. The Court stated that law does not support indolent individuals who deliberately evade maintenance responsibility.
Case Background
The wife had filed a case in the Family Court at Jabalpur under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment or dissolution of marriage. She also sought interim maintenance under Section 24 for herself and their child. The Supreme Court later transferred the case to the Family Court in Rourkela.
In her affidavit, the wife disclosed that she worked as a private school teacher earning ₹23,334 per month. The husband, however, claimed to be unemployed since March 2023 and had no source of income.
The Family Court ordered the husband to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance and ₹10,000 as litigation expenses. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition challenging the order.
Petitioner’s Stance
The husband argued that he was jobless and could not afford to pay maintenance. He also objected to the maintenance claim for the child, asserting that Section 24 of the Act covers only the spouse.
Court’s Ruling
The Court dismissed the husband’s plea, stating that being unemployed is different from deliberately remaining idle. It noted that the petitioner held a BE (Power Electronics) degree and had prior work experience. The Court cited Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024), where the Supreme Court ruled that a husband’s earning potential, not just his current job status, should be considered in maintenance cases.
The Court further observed that spouses with high qualifications who refuse to seek employment should not be encouraged. It stressed that maintenance should reflect the family’s lifestyle before separation and consider rising living costs.
Maintenance for Children Under Section 24
The husband contested the child’s maintenance under Section 24. However, the Court referred to Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024) and ruled that interim maintenance should cover both the spouse and dependent children. It stated that Section 26 of the Act also allows courts to grant maintenance for minors in pending proceedings.
The Court noted that while the husband claimed unemployment, he had previously held a senior position in a reputed organization. This contradiction weakened his case.
Final Verdict
The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that a qualified husband cannot dodge maintenance by refusing to work. It emphasized that legal provisions ensure financial security for spouses and children. The writ petition was dismissed.
