Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

"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