BHUBANESWAR: A well-qualified husband, who quits his job to sit idle and remains unemployed in order to deprive his wife of maintenance, cannot be appreciated in a civilised society, the Orissa high court has said, rejecting an appeal by an unemployed engineer against an order that required him to pay interim maintenance of ₹15,000 every month to his estranged wife, a school teacher, and their child.
“Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification and prospect to earn is other thing and if a husband being well qualified sufficient enough to earn sits idle only to shift the burden on the wife and expects ‘dole’ by remaining entangled in litigation should not only be deprecated, but also be discouraged inasmuch as law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles,” justice Gourishankar Satapathy said in his March 4 ruling.
In 2016, the school teacher filed for divorce at the family court of Jabalpur under sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also filed a suit under Section 24 for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The divorce and maintenance suit was transferred to the Rourkela Family Court by the Supreme Court.
The Family Court ordered the man to pay ₹15,000 per month to the woman, who earned a monthly salary of ₹23,000, and their child as interim maintenance with effect from April 22, 2017.
The man challenged the order in the high court, contending that he was unemployed and did not have any source of income since March 1, 2023.
The high court took note of the fact that the man had a BE (Power Electronics) degree and previously had a job.
“A person who is well qualified and was also in job earlier, but remains idle by quitting the job without any logic only to shift or avoiding the responsibility of maintenance of the wife cannot be appreciated in a civilized society,” the high court observed.
In its order, the high court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 which held that even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account.
“In other words, spouses having high qualification, but desirous to remain idle and not making any efforts for the purpose of finding out the source of livelihood should be discouraged,” the high court said.
The court said factors such as rising cost of living and inflation should be taken into account to ensure a standard of living that is proportionate to the husband’s financial capacity and commensurate to the standard of his living and the standard of living of the wife and children which they were accustomed to prior to the separation.
“At the cost of repetition, this court with annoyance needs it to emphasize that spouses having high qualification taking plea of unemployment with no income without any sincere efforts needs to be condemned,” justice Satapathy said in his 14-page verdict.