A Jurisprudential View on “Supportive” Maintenance for a Capable Wife

In a Karnataka High Court Judgment (XYZ and ANR Vs. Gurumanjunatha and Others) from July 4th 2023, a petition filed by a woman challenging the order of the Appellate court was rejected. The court reiterated the same previous opinion as given in the similar nature of the case. It reserved the order of the appellate court and found the order of reduction of maintenance to capable wife on merit and further gave a remark that she cannot sit idle and the court may only allow supportive maintenance for her. 

In the case above, Petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate Court reducing the maintenance and compensation amount on the filing of an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence.

By the order passed by the Sessions court, it substantially reduced the maintenance granted to the woman from Rs.10,000 to straight Rs.5,000 and compensation from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. The petitioners contended upon unreasonable reduction of Maintenance and Compensation awarded being too meagre by the Appellate Court. The order also states that the petitioner-wife was unwilling to live with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. The husband is running a provisional store and is responsible to maintain his mother and sister. Accordingly, it was observed by the Karnataka High Court as follows: 

 “Looking to the above facts and circumstances and considering the conduct of petitioner No.1, the order of maintenance awarded by the First Appellate Court by reducing from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 does not call for any interference. As regards the compensation amount, there is no material evidence as to on what basis the compensation was quantified. However, it was not challenged and the question of interfering with the said order does not arise at all”

Court has been adamant on similar nature of cases earlier in precedents such as:

•T. Ramesh V Ranjana, Karnataka H.C (2021)

The court in the above case took the wife’s action of resignation from her job not necessarily outrageous or an act of harassment for obliging husband in the eyes of law to provide her maintenance unless until showed on record.  

•Mamta Jaiswal V Rajesh Jaiswal, MP H.C. (2000)

H.C of Madhya Pradesh gave a very bold response to the lady petitioner that she cannot simply sit idle while she’s fighting a matrimonial petition for maintenance and divorce. The demand of pendente lite (during the litigation) alimony cannot be granted simply because the wife has resigned from her job. The lady herself being highly qualified cannot be allowed to make use of her overzealous attitude to make destructive use of maintenance laws with the sole purpose of harassing the husband.

•Damanpreet Kaur V Inderjeet Juneja, Delhi H.C. (2012)

Where the wife herself earned about Rupees 50,000p.m. was quite potential to maintain herself cannot simply resign in the name of extracting maintenance from the Husband, her claims for maintenance beyond the supportive amount and reasonable compensation were rejected. 

As understood from the precedents, Court always takes into account the financial status as well as the personal potential of the women to support themselves. If the status of the women is concocted to be portrayed as a helpless and dependent one then it is subsequently disregarded. Yet obviously, all the necessary factors surrounding the life of a husband and wife is encapsulated while passing the final order. Merely on the basis of a petition under D.V Act and Divorce Act, a conclusion cannot simply be drawn out on the portion of maintenance and compensation to be obtained from the husband as all these topics are diverse in nature and would yield different relief. On the other side, it can also be understood from the precedents and remarks by the Court, that the Liabilities that surround the life of a husband is legit a part while calculating an amount for passing an order of maintenance. This includes the family members present on a regular basis in Husband’s family to look after, his job profile, any other source of income if any, and his own day-to-day expenses and his aid required towards children born out of the same wedlock. 

Supportive Maintenance is an aid for the wife to ensure her smooth and dignified livelihood. But the same cannot be construed as a weapon to make the Respondent or Husband party contribute unreasonably to support the ex-wife.  The status of the wife considering her health, qualification, day-to-day needs, and past job profile has to be taken into account while she claims for maintenance and compensation. If she’s found dependent on the maintenance of the husband, then that should be consequential and not a maliciously generated situation.

Written By:- VR Associates Law Firm
Visit - www.vipinraina.com