[S.24 Hindu Marriage Act] If Husband physically fit to earn – Can not claim maintenance from wife: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka the High Court, ordering a woman to pay maintenance to an able-bodied husband who is not disabled or ill would encourage inactivity.

"Merely because Section 24 of (Hindu Marriage) Act is gender neutral for provision of maintenance, it would be promoting idleness notwithstanding the fact that the husband has no barrier or handicap to earn," Justice M. Nagaprasanna made plain in a single judge bench.

The bench made the comment while rejecting the husband's application for monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000 and litigation expenses at Rs. 30,000 from the family court and upholding an order made by the family court that grants the wife maintenance of Rs. 10,000 and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000.

The husband's major argument was that because he lost his job at the start of Covid-19 and has been looking for work for the previous two years, the wife should not be entitled to support; instead, the husband should be granted maintenance from the wife.

Furthermore, it was asserted that the husband must cover the costs of the legal processes because the wife has filed multiple lawsuits against him and his family and her parents are wealthy.

"The allegation that the petitioner has no employment and no means of maintaining himself and, thus, is not in a position to support the wife and, in turn, demands maintenance from the wife," the bench stated after reviewing the documents. "It is inadmissible as it is fundamentally faulty."

Then it was said, "It cannot be maintained that he is unable of earning only because he lost his work at the beginning of Covid19. Therefore, it is indisputable that the husband has opted to live a leisurely lifestyle by asking the wife for maintenance based on his own behaviour.

"In the thoughtful opinion of this Court, such an application cannot be allowed," the court's ruling said, "since the husband cannot afford to become incapacitated and maintain an application under Section 24 of the Act to demand maintenance from the husband's hands. The spirit of Section 24 of the Act would be in direct opposition to this. Therefore, the spouse is unable to request support unless he can show that he has a physical or mental impairment that prevents him from obtaining employment.

The bench stated, "'It is preferable to wear out, than rust out," in reference to the obligation of a physically capable husband to support himself, the wife, and the kid, if any.

As a result, it rejected the petition.

XYZ And ABC