Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court of Karnataka has reaffirmed that a husband's obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and child is distinct from his responsibility to cover the child’s school fees. The Court made it clear that payment of school fees does not exempt the husband from paying maintenance for the living expenses of his wife and child.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the court, observed : “It is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and the child and not to wash of his hands from the responsibility of maintenance. The payment of the fees, paid that is by the petitioner, would not mean that the husband would not pay maintenance for the child, for living.”

The court made the observation while hearing a case brought before it by the husband (petitioner), challenging the orders issued by the lower courts, which had directed him to pay interim maintenance of ₹5,000 each to his wife and their 5 year old daughter. The couple, married in 2017, experienced a breakdown in their relationship, leading to the wife initiating multiple legal proceedings against him, including charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The wife sought interim maintenance for herself and their child, which was granted by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, in January 2021. The husband appealed against this order, which was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in September 2021. Subsequently, he approached the High Court for relief.

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate S.G. Rajendra Reddy, argued that his monthly income of ₹30,000 as a professor made it difficult for him to meet the maintenance payments of ₹10,000 in addition to the school fees, which he had been paying since 2022. He further contended that since his wife had previously worked for Infosys, she was financially capable and did not require maintenance.

However, the wife, represented by Advocate D.P. Mahesh, refuted these claims, asserting that she had quit her job at her husband's insistence to care for their child. Given this sacrifice, the maintenance ordered by the lower courts was both reasonable and necessary for her and the child’s livelihood. The counsel also pointed out that the husband had failed to make any maintenance payments, except for a partial amount of ₹30,000, leaving arrears totalling ₹3,70,000.

The court, after evaluating the arguments, observed that a husband’s obligation to provide maintenance cannot be negated by the payment of school fees alone. “Payment of the fees is all together different responsibility apart from the husband paying maintenance to maintain a child and the wife,” the court noted.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that his financial situation made it impossible to comply with the maintenance order, emphasising that that the wife had left her job at her husband's request, making his financial support crucial.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the lower courts' orders and reaffirmed the husband's duty to pay maintenance. It dismissed the petition stating that “On all these factors entertaining a petition of the petitioner - husband who is in gross default in payment of maintenance, does not arise.”

 

Cause Title: CHAITHANYA REDDY S.V v SMT. NAYANA [CRL.P No. 4463 of 2024]