Section 24 of the Hindu marriage act entitles not only the wife but also the husband to claim maintenance pendente lite on showing that he has no independent source of income. However, the husband will have to satisfy the court that either due to physical or mental disability he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood.
The Karnataka High Court recently supported the family court decision and stated that a wife to pay maintenance to his well fitted husband would amount to encourage Idleness in their husbands.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made it clear that “Merely because Section 24 of (Hindu Marriage) Act is gender neutral for grant of maintenance, it would be promoting idleness notwithstanding the fact that the husband has no impediment or handicap to earn.”
As per the section, maintenance are for those who does suffer from any disability or infirmity. The husband should be in such condition that cannot afford his and his family livings.
The bench upholding the connotation of the family court, and therefore observed “The contention that the petitioner has no job and has no means to maintain himself and, therefore, is not in a position to maintain the wife and in turn wants maintenance from the wife, is unacceptable as it is fundamentally flawed.”
An application was filed by the husband seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.2,00,000 and litigation expenses at Rs.30,000, from the wife.
An order passed by the family court, granted maintenance of Rs 10,000 and litigation expense of Rs 25,000 to the wife.
The husband backed his petition by saying that at the outset of Covid-19, he became unemployed and for the last two years he is not able to find a job and, therefore, claimed that the maintenance should be given to him and not to his wife.
The petition, further stated that the wife’s family are in good health and as she has instituted several proceedings against the husband and his family members so now she has to bear the expenses for litigations.
It was decided by the court that “Merely because he has lost his job on the onset of Covid19, it cannot be held that he is incapable of earning. Therefore, it can be irrefutably concluded that the husband by his own conduct has decided to lead a leisurely life by seeking maintenance from the hands of the wife.”
The court, further enunciates, “In the considered view of this Court, such an application cannot be granted, as the husband cannot afford to incapacitate himself and sustain an application under Section 24 of the Act to claim maintenance from the hands of the husband. This would be an anathema to the spirit of Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the husband cannot seek any maintenance unless he would demonstrate such a disability either physical or mental which incapacitates him from earning money by finding a job for himself.”
Noting that it is the duty of an able bodied husband to maintain himself, the wife and the child, if any, the bench opined “‘It is better to wear out, than rust out.”
Therefore, the court dismissed the case.
BY: AYUSHI BHUSHAN, 1st YEAR BA.LLB(INTEGRATED), BANASTHALI UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN
0 Comments