Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"Karnataka High Court Upholds Homemaker's Right to Maintenance, Recognizes Childcare as Full-Time Responsibility"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court has underscored the significance of a homemaker's role in raising children, affirming that "taking care of children is a full-time job." The court granted a monthly maintenance of ₹36,000 to a mother, who had quit her job to take care of her children.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Shylaja S. R and others against Sri Hareesha A, modifying a previous order by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The earlier order had granted only half of the claimed maintenance amount.

In the judgment (Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2023), the court highlighted the mother's sacrifices, noting, "It is not in dispute that on the birth of the first child, the wife was asked to leave the job of a Teacher to take care of the child." The court emphasized the importance of a mother's role, saying, "The wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock."

The case revolved around the claim of interim maintenance by the petitioner, who had sought financial support for herself and her two children following the deterioration of her marriage. Her husband, a manager in Canara Bank with a salary close to ₹90,000, opposed the claim, suggesting that his wife, being qualified, should work and earn rather than depend on maintenance.

Rejecting this contention, the court observed, "The respondent being the husband, cannot be seen to contend that the wife is lazing around and not earning money to take care of the children." Justice Nagaprasanna cited various precedents, including the Apex Court's judgments, to emphasize that maintenance must enable the wife and children to continue living as they did before the marital discord.

This decision is seen as a significant acknowledgment of the non-economic contributions of homemakers in a marriage and their entitlement to financial support in cases of marital discord. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal system's recognition of the intrinsic value of homemaking and childcare, roles often undervalued in monetary terms.

Date of Decision: 28-02-2024

SMT. SHYLAJA S. R AND OTHERS Vs. SRI HAREESHA A

 

Latest Legal News