Wife working before can’t sit idle and seek entire maintenance from husband: Karnataka High Court

A wife who was employed earlier cannot sit idle and fully rely upon maintenance from her estranged husband but she should make possible efforts in order to bear her expenses (overall livelihood), recently said the Karnataka High Court while rejecting a plea by a woman who challenged a Magistrate Court which was granted a reduction in the maintenance and compensation amount to her.

The case came into light while the Court was hearing an appeal by a woman and her child challenging the order of the sessions court (appellate court) in which the maintenance amount reduced from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000 and compensation from ₹3,00,000 to ₹2,00,000.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that the woman was working before her marriage, and she also didn’t submit/provide any explanation regarding if she was presently not able to work.

The Court noted, “She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.”

The petitioner argued that the compensation amount was insufficient and that the appellate court had reduced the maintenance without giving proper justifications.

The High Court noted that the appellate court had confirmed the order granting maintenance to the child and only reduced the maintenance to the wife.

Additionally, it was observed that the wife expressed her unwillingness or residing with her in-laws (mother-in-law and an unmarried sister-in-law).

Moreover, the Court also noted that the husband, who runs provision stores was solely responsible for the care of his mother and unmarried sister.

The Court dismissed the plea taking the above facts into consideration.

“Looking to the above facts and circumstances and considering the conduct of petitioner No.1, the order of maintenance awarded by the First Appellate Court by reducing from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 does not call for any interference. As regards compensation amount, there is no material evidence as to on what basis the compensation was quantified. However, it was not challenged and the question of interfering with the said order does not arise at all.”

Advocate Javed S appeared for the petitioners while advocate GS Patil appeared for the respondents.

Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/wife-cannot-sit-idle-seek-entire-maintenance-husband-karnataka-high-court