Homemaker works indefatigably round the clock; Taking care of children a whole time job for mother: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

BENGALURU: A homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock and taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job, the Karnataka High Court observed while hearing a plea seeking maintenance. 

It is shrouded by countless responsibilities and necessary expenditure from time to time. The wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock. 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, as observed hereinabove, taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job. Therefore, such submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband, is noted only to be rejected as, to say the least, they are preposterous, Justice M Nagaprasanna stated in the judgement. 

In this plea, an estranged wife was seeking maintenance of Rs. 36,000/- per month from her husband, before a subordinate court. The court ordered maintenance at Rs. 18,000/- per month. Aggrieved, the wife/applicant moved the High Court seeking an enhancement in the maintenance amount. 

It was argued on behalf of the 1st petitioner that her husband is a Manager in Canara Bank and earns close to Rs. 90,000/- as salary. Though qualified, the husband urged the applicant to leave her job to take care of the children. Further, school fee and other incidental expenses of the children are not being met by the husband and the husband every time dodges the issue of payment of money. Therefore, she requires maintenance. 

The counsel for the respondent husband opposed the plea, stating that the applicant was not a dutiful wife. She has not taken care of the needs of the husband and further, he is in a job which is fluctuating; he may at any time lose it. 

At the onset, the Court noted that maintenance is trite that it is granted to tide over the crisis that befalls on the wife after leaving the matrimonial house, sometimes with children and sometimes alone where there are no children. 

In the case at hand, two children are born from the wedlock and between the wife and the husband the relationship turns sore after 8 years of marriage. In these circumstances, with the growing necessity of money qua the cost of living and the manner in which the couple lived together along with the children, maintenance has to be adjudged and granted.

After relying on various Supreme Court judgements, the court concluded that maintenance has to be awarded to the wife and children which would be commensurate to the cost of living or continued living as they lived along with the respondent. Therefore, the concerned Court has undoubtedly fallen in error in directing maintenance only at `18,000/- per month, as against `36,000/- per month, as was sought on the ground that the wife is qualified and can make a living by earning self. 

The Court also did not accept the respondents argument regarding how he has a risk of losing his job anytime now. 

It is not a job that can be taken away like how pink slips are issued by private employers, who sometimes practice the role of hire and fire, nor the petitioner is bound by the principle of last come first go. He is in a job that offers security of tenure. The pay that he receives can never be reduced; it can only grow. Therefore, those submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/husband are to be rejected as misleading and mischievous. 

Merely because wife is qualified, she is not barred from seeking any maintenance. Every case will have to be considered on the strength of the merit obtaining in those cases, the court stated while allowing the application.

[Read Order]