Karnataka HC Rules: Wife Can't Sit Idle And Claim Full Maintenance

In a recent verdict, the Karnataka High Court ruled that a woman who was previously employed cannot sit idle and seek her entire maintenance from her husband. The court was hearing a plea filed by a woman hailing from Anekal town in Bengaluru.

Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that a wife who was previously employed is legally bound to make some efforts to earn the expenses necessary for her livelihood and can only seek supportive maintenance from her husband.

Karnataka HC On Wife Maintenance 

The woman approached the magistrate court in Karnataka with her now 11-year-old son in 2014, seeking maintenance from her husband. She filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The court had then ordered the husband, who owns a provisions store, to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 5,000 per month to their son. Additionally, the husband was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the wife for causing her mental agony.

After the husband appealed in 2015, the court reduced the maintenance amount for the wife to Rs. 5000, the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs, and retained Rs. 5000 for child maintenance.

The wife then moved to the high court and filed a petition, arguing that the compensation was meager and that the sessions court had reduced the maintenance and compensation amount without any proper reasoning. She claimed that she and her minor son were incapable of maintaining themselves and pleaded for the order passed by the sessions court to be restored.

Justice Badamikar examined the materials on record and pointed out that the woman was employed before marriage but quit her job afterward. The wife also admitted that she was staying with her mother and her son in a rented house because she wasn’t interested in living with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law.

The court noted that the husband had the responsibility of taking care of his unmarried sister and his mother. So, the court said that the wife was working before marriage and had resigned from her job, and it noted that there wasn’t any explanation provided as to why she was incapable of working now.

Justice Badamikar emphasised that she is not supposed to sit idle and seek the entire maintenance from her husband; she is legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood needs and can only seek supportive maintenance from her husband.

It’s agreeable that the husband has a responsibility towards his aged mother and unmarried sister; he also has an equal responsibility to take care of his wife and their son. Just because the wife isn’t living with him, he cannot forgo his responsibility. No woman would want to live away from her life partner unless being harassed or subjected to abuse. 

 Abusive Husbands Given A Loophole?

It is established from above that the wife was subjected to some kind of abuse, and that’s why she has been made eligible to receive monetary compensation for being subjected to mental agony. She has moved out of her husband’s house because of the harassment that was inflicted on her. So, isn’t the husband at fault here? Shouldn’t he be rightfully taking care of her and their son’s financial needs?

Moreover, being a single mother in Indian society is difficult in all senses. Women are vulnerable to public scrutiny, judgements, criticisms, and unsolicited comments. Women already face a lot of gender disparity in workplaces. It’s not easy especially for single mothers, to get a job with a notable career gap on their resume.  Also, not all single mothers have a solid support system to lean on and balance work and life. Managing it all single-handedly while keeping themselves from crumbling apart isn’t easy, especially with the kind of taunts that single mothers have to endure. In this case, it is hard to figure out the reason for her being unemployed, neither court took the initiative to know her reasons. 

Instead of reducing the maintenance and compensation amount and observing that women are legally bound to take care of their livelihood, the court could have directed a further investigation into the matter and tried to understand why the woman who was previously employed is unable to work now. A little sensitivity towards the women could have worked and also helped in arriving at a better verdict that was comfortable for both parties.

Suggested Reading: Complaint Of Dowry Harassment Can't Be Quashed Even If Divorce Notice Issued: Karnataka HC

Views expressed by the author are their own