Chambers of Mr. Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that a husband has a duty to take care of his wife and children both in law and religion.
Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting a Hindu man's (petitioner) plea to reduce the maintenance payable by him to his wife and daughter.
"The husband is bound to look after wife and children. That is a duty which the law & religion to which the parties belong enjoins the husband with," the judge observed.
The petitioner-husband had challenged a family court's interim order directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 to his wife and ₹2,500 to each for his two daughters as an interim measure in the pending case.
The husband's lawyer argued before the High Court that the decision to set the monthly maintenance amount at ₹8,000 was unjustifiable, considering the husband's limited income and his wife's alleged behaviour.
The lawyer further emphasized that the husband had a responsibility to support his elderly parents, who were living in a rented home.
The judge, however, declined to reduce the maintenance amount, opining that a sum of ₹8,000 per month was barely enough in today's day and age.
"In costly days like these, what is awarded in a sum of ₹8,000/- as a collective maintenance for the wife and two minor school going daughters, is apparently too meager a sum, to hold body & soul together," the judge said.
The Court further noted that neither the marriage between the parties nor the birth of the children out of wedlock was in dispute.
The Court also pointed out that the husband had not given sufficient details on how far he had to support his elderly parents, considering that he admitted that his father receives pension payments.
"Had the petitioner given the full particulars of monthly pension being earned by his father, court could have adjudged its sufficiency for the parents. He has also not stated as to there being brothers or sisters. No explanation is forthcoming that would otherwise entitle him to secure an order at the hands of this court for setting aside the impugned award of maintenance," the Court observed.
With this, the Court refused to the husband's plea.
