The Karnataka High Court recently made a ruling stating that a woman should not solely rely on seeking the entire maintenance amount from her husband and instead should only seek “supportive” maintenance.

The decision was made by Justice Rajendra Badamikar during a matrimonial case in which a woman had challenged the reduction in maintenance ordered by a civil and sessions court, from ₹ 10,000 to ₹ 5,000, and compensation from ₹ 300,000 to ₹ 200,000.

After examining the facts of the case, the court observed that the woman had been employed before her marriage and found no reason why she could not resume her work now. The single-judge bench rejected the revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It noted that the woman was currently residing with her mother and child in a rented house.

The court also highlighted that the husband had rented a separate house for the woman to live in, as she refused to stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. The judge acknowledged that the husband, who runs provision stores, had the responsibility of caring for his mother and unmarried sister. The court emphasized that the woman had a legal obligation to make some effort to support her livelihood.

The woman had initially filed a petition before the lower court, along with her child, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and compensation from her husband, reported The Times Of India.

The lower court had granted her request, which was later reduced by the appellate court.  Further, the Karnataka HC refused to accept the wife and child’s argument that the reduced compensation was insufficient, stating that there was no proper reasoning provided for the reduction and no concrete evidence to support the awarded compensation.

As a result, the court declined to interfere with the appellate court’s order, as it was not challenged and lacked grounds for intervention.

‘Homemakers Entitled To Equal Share Of Property’

The Madras High Court (HC) recently made a significant ruling stating that women homemakers are entitled to an equal share of property purchased using their husband’s income. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy emphasized that being a homemaker is a 24-hour job without holidays and cannot be equated with the working hours of an earning husband who typically works only 8 hours.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy acknowledged the valuable contributions of wives to the family by managing household affairs and caring for the children. He stated, “In the generality of marriages, the wife bears and rears children and minds the home. She thereby frees her husband for his economic activities… Since it is her performance of her function which enables the husband to perform his, she is, in justice, entitled to share in its fruits,” as reported by Hindustan Times.

The court recognized the absence of legislation explicitly acknowledging the domestic contributions made by homemakers and expressed the opinion that if assets are acquired through joint contributions from both spouses—one through employment and the other through caring for the family—both parties are entitled to an equal share.

Furthermore, the court noted that homemakers possess a diverse range of skills, acting as managers, chefs, home doctors, and home economists, effectively multitasking to ensure the smooth functioning of the household.

When determining the division of property, the court considered the significant contributions made by wives through their domestic chores, enabling husbands to engage in gainful employment. The court concluded that spouses who have dedicated decades to looking after the home and caring for the family are entitled to a share in the property.

“If, on marriage, she gives up her paid work in order to devote herself to caring for her husband and children, it is an unwarrantable hardship when in consequence she finds herself in the end with nothing she can call her own,” the court said.

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of a 2016 case involving the late Kannaian Naidu, who had accused his estranged wife, Kamsala alias Banumathi, of using his earnings to purchase properties, taking possession of them, and engaging in an extramarital affair. Following Kannaian Naidu’s death, their three children continued the legal proceedings against their widowed mother.

The defendant’s counsel, V Anusha, refuted the allegations of an extramarital affair and argued that the couple, who married in 1965, had a mutual understanding wherein the wife would stay at home and care for their children (two sons and a daughter) while the husband worked abroad. It was contended that had the wife pursued a career as a teacher, she would have earned an equal income.

The couple resided in Neyveli, Tamil Nadu. During the period when their children were minors, the late plaintiff worked in Saudi Arabia for a steel company from 1983 until December 1994, after which he returned.

The court opined that in this particular case, if the wife had not agreed to the arrangement, the husband would not have been able to work abroad and accumulate “all the money.”

The court recognized the wife’s continuous 24-hour services, including cooking meals, caring for the children, sending them to school, and managing household chores. The judgment noted that if the husband had hired maids to cover three shifts of 8 hours each day, it would have incurred significant expenses, which would not have been sufficient to acquire properties or save money.

Also Read: “Copycat” Platform: Twitter Threatens To Sue Meta Over Threads

https://thelogicalindian.com/h-upload/2023/07/07/500x300_232490-photo2023-07-0713-47-45.webp

Trending

2023-07-07 08:41:21.0

‘Wife Employed Earlier Can’t Sit Idle & Seek Maintenance’: Karnataka HC