“Karnataka High Court in a recent case discussed the question if a husband is eligible to claim maintenance or not. This Article by Law Community (I) discusses the case and observations made therein by the Hon’ble High Court.“
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) codifies law related to marriage and its ancillary matters. In this context, recently, the Karnataka High Court has given an important judgement in the matter of Shri. N. Girish v Smt. M. Kusuma, Writ Petition No. 24226 of 2022 (GM-FC).The sections of the Act that came up for discussion in the case before the court are Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Section 9), Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings (Section 24), and Divorce (Section 13).
Facts of the Case
The husband (Petitioner) and wife (Respondent) got married on 6/2/2017. The Respondent left her matrimonial house and began to live with her parents on reason of sour relationship with the Petitioner. Later the Petitioner filed for divorce under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act. Thereupon, the Respondent invoked Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of her conjugal rights. The Respondent also filed an application under section 24 of the Act, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month and litigation expense of 1 lakh from the Petitioner.The Petitioner objected to the petition under Section 9 stating that he has no means to survive, and hence, files another petition placing his contention that it is him who is in need of interim maintenance from the Respondent to maintain himself and his parents (Maintenance Application). Maintenance amount claimed by the Petitioner was Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- until its disposal. On this, the lower court by order dated. 31/10/22 rejected the Maintenance Application and ordered grant of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance and Rs. 25,000/- litigation expenses to the Respondent. Aggrieved from the lower court’s order, the Petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition.
Issue
The pivotal issued in this case was whether a husband is eligible to claim maintenance or not.
Arguments advanced by the Petitioner
The counsels of the Petitioner argued that he has no means to maintain himself and his parents as he has become unemployed because of covid 19 and for last two years, he is unable to find job.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent
From the Respondent’s side it was contended that the Petitioner earns a good amount of salary, which is close to Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- per month. The photograph of the place and nature of work shows that he is well employed.
Judgement
After hearing the contentions of both the sides the Court upheld the lower court’s judgement and rejected the writ petition of the Petitioner. The Court stated that, “if the husband is an able-bodied man, he cannot project the plea that he has no means to pay. It is necessary for husband to earn by legitimate means to maintain wife and children. The Court quoted that it is better to wear out than rust out.”
It is pertinent to discuss Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that entitles a person with dignified life and to have all the basic amenities like food, shelter, clothing and other necessary requirements. Also, as per social justice principle, it is the natural duty of a man to provide these all-basic amenities to his wife, parents and children in the form of maintenance.
In addition to Section 24 of the Act, there are various provisions regarding maintenance, as mentioned under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that is a secular provision where anyone from any religion could file a suit for claim of maintenance. Further, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 there is a separate chapter for maintenance.
The Act codified in 1955, is archaic in nature to the extent it provided for the husbands to maintain his wife, but in today’s context is it still relevant? Can it be possible the other way round? The single bench of the Karnataka High Court has attempted to clarify the position of law in this matter that maintenance provision is gender neutral. Any party be it a man or a woman can claim maintenance from the other. However, there is a condition, that if a woman is capable enough to earn her living then no maintenance to be provided to her. If a man is able bodied irrespective of whether he is earning or not he is bound to provide maintenance to his wife.
The Court followed the judgement of Anju Garg v Deepak Kumar Garg, (2022 SCC OnLine SC 134) “ the Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute”. and in Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai, (Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316) court clarified that, “the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.”
Hence, this case will become an important case that gave clarity to the moot question of whether able bodied husbands have a right to maintenance or not. Provisions of maintenance, under the various laws are for benefitting the oppressed party and are regarded as a social duty to prevent vagrancy and destitution that may lead to crimes and should not be misused in any manner.