“The husband is bound to look after wife and children. That is a duty which the law & religion to which the parties belong enjoins the husband with,” the Court observed.
The Karnataka High Court has recently affirmed the legal and religious obligation of a husband to provide for his wife and children.
Justice Krishna S. Dixit emphasized this principle while rejecting a Hindu man’s plea to reduce the maintenance he was ordered to pay to his wife and daughter by a family court.
In the judgment, the judge stressed that it is both a legal and religious duty for a husband to provide for his wife and children. This statement came in response to the petitioner-husband’s challenge of the family court’s interim order, which required him to pay a monthly maintenance of 3,000 to his wife and 2,500 to each of his two daughters.
The husband’s attorney argued that the monthly maintenance amount of 8,000 was unjustified, given the husband’s limited income and the purported behavior of his wife. The attorney also pointed out that the husband was responsible for supporting his elderly parents, who were renting a home.
However, the judge declined to reduce the child support amount, noting that 8,000 per month was insufficient in today’s costly environment. The judge remarked, “In these expensive times, an award of ₹8,000/- as combined maintenance for the wife and two minor school-going daughters is evidently insufficient to sustain them.”
The court also underlined that there were no disputes regarding the marriage of the parties or the birth of the children outside of wedlock.
Regarding the husband’s financial responsibilities towards his elderly parents, the court noted that the husband had not provided adequate information, despite acknowledging that his father received pension payments. The court stated, “Had the petitioner furnished complete details about his father’s monthly pension, the court could have assessed whether it was sufficient for the parents. Additionally, the petitioner failed to mention whether he had siblings.” The court found no grounds to set aside the contested maintenance award and thus denied the husband’s petition.
Srinivasan SK served as the attorney representing the husband in this case.
