The court rejected the petitioner's argument that his financial situation made it impossible for him to comply with the maintenance order. (document)
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed: “The husband is obliged to maintain his wife and children…The payment of fees by the applicant does not mean that the husband will not pay maintenance of the children for the sake of living.”
The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that a husband’s obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and children is distinct from his responsibility to pay school fees for his children. The court made it clear that payment of school fees does not exempt a husband from paying alimony for the maintenance of his wife and children.
Judge M. Nagaprasanna of the presiding court observed: “The husband is obliged to support his wife and children and not to evade the maintenance responsibility. The payment of fees by the applicant does not mean that the husband will not pay for the maintenance of the children.
The court made the observations while hearing a case filed by the husband (applicant) challenging the order issued by a lower court directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 5,000 each to his wife and five-year-old daughter. The couple got married in 2017 but their relationship broke down, leading to the wife filing multiple legal proceedings against him, including charges under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. An application was filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The wife sought interim maintenance for herself and the children and the Chief Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga granted the order in January 2021. .
Advocate SG Rajendra Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his monthly income as a professor was Rs 30,000, which made it difficult for him to pay living expenses of Rs 10,000 on top of the tuition fees he has been paying since 2022. My wife once worked for a reputable company, so she has financial ability and does not need support.
However, the wife, represented by advocate DP Mahesh, refuted the claims and claimed that she resigned because of her husband's insistence on taking care of the children. In light of this sacrifice, the alimony ordered by the lower court was both reasonable and necessary for her and her children's livelihood. The lawyer also pointed out that the husband had not paid any alimony except a portion of 370,000 rupees, and the total arrears was 370,000 rupees.
After assessing these arguments, the court held that the husband's obligation to provide maintenance could not be discharged solely by the payment of school fees. “The payment of expenses is a separate responsibility in addition to the husband's payment of child support and alimony to his wife,” the court noted.
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that his financial situation made it impossible for him to comply with the maintenance order, stressing that the wife left her job at the husband's request and therefore his financial support was crucial.
Dismissing the petition, the court said: “Considering all these factors of the petitioner's petition, there is no case of a husband who is seriously in arrears of alimony.”
