E-Paper
Quitting job to deny wife alimony is not appreciated in civilised society: Orissa HC
Orissa HC rules a qualified husband who stays unemployed to avoid maintenance responsibilities is unacceptable in society, affirming a ₹15,000 monthly order.
A well-qualified husband who quits his job to remain idle and unemployed to deprive his wife of maintenance “cannot be appreciated in a civilised society”, the Orissa high court has said while deciding a maintenance dispute.
A single judge bench made the remark while rejecting a petition by a man who challenged a Rourkela court’s decision ordering him to pay ₹15,000 maintenance to his estranged wife, a school teacher. The man claimed he was unemployed since March 1, 2023.
“Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification and prospect to earn is [an]other thing and if a husband being well qualified [and is] sufficient enough to earn sits idle only to shift the burden on the wife and expects ‘dole’ by remaining entangled in litigation, it should not only be deprecated, but also be discouraged inasmuch as law never helps indolent,” said the order by justice Gourishankar Satapathy, who said the decision was also intended to now allow “an army of self-made lazy idles”.
In 2016, the woman filed a divorce suit at family court of Jabalpur under section 11 and section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also filed a suit under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The divorce and maintenance suit was transferred to family court, Rourkela by the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, the woman said she is earning ₹23,334 per month as a school teacher while her husband said he is unemployed and does not have any source of income since March 1, 2023. The family court asked the man to pay a sum of ₹15,000 per month to the woman and their child as interim maintenance with effect from April 22, 2017.
The man then challenged the order in the high court.
The HC took note of the fact that the man has a qualification of BE (Power Electronics) and previously, he was in employment.
“A person who is well qualified and was also in job earlier, but remains idle by quitting the job without any logic only to shift or avoiding the responsibility of maintenance of the wife cannot be appreciated in a civilized society,” it observed.
The court in its order referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Maini v Patel, 2024 which held that even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account.
“In other words, spouses having high qualification, but desirous to remain idle and not making any efforts for the purpose of finding out the source of livelihood should be discouraged,” it added.
The court further held that factors like rising cost of living and inflation should be taken into account to ensure a standard of living that is proportionate to the husband’s financial capacity and commensurate to the standard of his living and the standard of living of the wife and children which they were accustomed to prior to the separation.
