“Taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole-time job” and a husband cannot refuse to pay maintenance by contending that the “wife is lazing around and not earning enough to take care of children though she is well qualified”, observed the High Court of Karnataka while doubling interim maintenance to a woman in a pending plea for divorce.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while allowing a petition filed by woman seeking higher interim maintenance from husband for taking care of herself and two minor children during the pendency of the divorce petition as against the mere ₹18,000 per month granted by a Family Court. The High Court has now doubled this amount as per her plea along with the arrears.
The couple were married in 2012 and their relationship went sour after eight years of marriage resulting in plea for divorce in 2022.
Once the wife sought maintenance, the husband started alleging that though the wife is qualified, she is not willing to work and earn money and wants to live on the maintenance that the husband pays.
“The wife-mother admittedly has quit the job to take care of the children and taking care of the children cannot be taking care of mere existence. It is shrouded by countless responsibilities and necessary expenditure from time to time. The wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock… a dutiful mother is on a higher pedestal than a dutiful wife,” the High Court said
The High Court pointed out that the wife, who was working as a lecturer before marriage, had continued in the job till the first child was born and she was asked to quit the job to take care of the child, she was completely out of employment after the birth of the second child “only to take care of the children, and became a homemaker and a dutiful mother taking care of her children.”
The husband, the High Court said, opposed payment of maintenance on the ground that she was quarrelsome, “not a dutiful wife”, and she does not want to earn to take care of children even though she is well qualified to get a job. He, before the High Court, had also claimed that he is in a fluctuating job and is not able to pay maintenance more than what has been ordered by the Family Court as he has to take care of his mother too.
However, the High Court found that he has a secure job as he is employed as a manager – an officer in the middle management grade II earning more than ₹70,000 per month and the pay that he receives can never be reduced, it can only grow while terming husband’s claims as preposterous.
