In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, rejected a petition challenging the orders mandating interim maintenance to a wife and child, reinforcing the legal responsibility of a husband to support his family financially, even in cases of marital discord.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the marriage of the petitioner (husband) and the first respondent (wife) on September 1, 2017, which later deteriorated, leading to several legal proceedings. The wife initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and invoked Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). Concurrently, she filed for interim maintenance for herself and her child, born from the wedlock, which the lower courts granted.
The orders under challenge included a directive from the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, dated January 15, 2021, which was subsequently upheld by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, on September 16, 2021. The petitioner, earning a monthly salary of ₹30,000 as an Assistant Professor, argued that paying ₹5,000 each to the wife and child as interim maintenance was burdensome, especially since he was already covering the child’s school fees.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal issue revolved around the husband’s obligation to provide interim maintenance under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), despite his claims of financial strain and the wife’s employment history.
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, argued that the wife was previously employed at Infosys and thus should not be entitled to maintenance. In contrast, the respondent’s counsel, Sri D.P. Mahesh, contended that the wife had resigned from her job to care for their child at the husband’s insistence, making his financial support essential.
Court’s Decision
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after hearing both sides, delivered a decisive verdict, emphasizing that the husband’s obligation to provide maintenance extends beyond just covering school fees. The court made it clear that the payment of school fees does not absolve the husband of his duty to provide for the living expenses of both his wife and child. In his judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna stated:
“Payment of the fees is altogether a different responsibility apart from the husband paying maintenance to maintain a child and the wife.”
The court observed that the wife had quit her job to take care of the child at the husband’s request, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the husband to fulfill his financial duties toward his family. The petitioner’s argument of financial incapacity, given his salary of ₹30,000 per month, was dismissed as insufficient to exempt him from his responsibilities.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the maintenance order is interim and subject to modification by the concerned court. However, the petitioner’s failure to comply with the existing maintenance order, resulting in arrears amounting to ₹3,70,000, weighed heavily against him. Justice Nagaprasanna pointedly rejected the petition, noting that the petitioner’s refusal to pay the ordered maintenance made the prospect of offering him relief untenable.
Key Observations from the Judgment:
– The court underscored that the husband’s financial obligations include, but are not limited to, school fees, stressing that “maintenance for the child’s living and the wife’s support is equally critical.”
– It was noted that the husband’s argument of financial strain was not compelling enough to negate the maintenance order.
– The court emphasized that maintenance is a right of the wife and child, especially when the wife is unemployed and tasked with childcare.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband, reaffirming that the obligation to pay maintenance is not mitigated by other financial contributions like school fees.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 4463 of 2024
– Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
– Petitioner: Husband
– Respondents: Wife and Child (represented by Sri D.P. Mahesh)
