Karnataka High Court: A man had filed an appeal with the High Court challenging a previous Family Court decision that had awarded his wife and daughter interim support payments of Rs 7,000 and Rs 3,000 per month, respectively.
The bench further stated that an acceptable amount had been awarded, taking into account inflation, the cost of living, and the wife’s need to support herself in addition to appearing in court.
The Karnataka High Court has decided that a man’s inability to find work cannot absolve him of his duty to provide for his wife and kid. On May 27, a bench led by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order.
A man had petitioned the High Court to overturn a previous Family Court ruling that had given his wife and daughter interim support payments of Rs 7,000 and Rs 3,000 per month, respectively.
Since he had lost his work and had no other source of money to cover the maintenance payments, he had claimed that he was jobless. But the family court had also said that his family was the owners of a business complex.
The bench said, “The petitioner is obligated to support his wife and any young children if he has abandoned her, regardless of his financial situation. Despite his claim that he has lost his job, the petitioner cannot avoid his responsibilities.The cost of interim maintenance is reasonable.
The bench further stated that an acceptable amount had been awarded, taking into account inflation, the cost of living, and the wife’s need to support herself in addition to appearing in court. The court subsequently rejected the petition.
Karnataka High Court: Maintenance to the spouse and child.
The bench led by Justice Sachin Sankar Magadum declared that, regardless of his financial situation, a husband who has abandoned his wife and any minor children is obligated to provide for them while addressing the current petition, which was filed by the husband to challenge the Family Court’s order of interim maintenance. The spouse contested the contested Family Court ruling, which mandated that he give his wife interim support of Rs. 7000 per month and his minor daughter Rs. 3000 per month. Because he lost his work and has no other means of income, the spouse claimed he is unable to pay the interim maintenance.
Examining the case, the Court referred to the contested ruling issued by the Family Court, which had recognized that the husband’s family is the owner of a business complex. The High Court ruled that in the event of a desertion, the spouse is obligated to provide support and cannot avoid this duty by pretending to be unemployed. The Court further pointed out that the sum of interim support mentioned above is not excessive.
The Court observed that the woman must support herself, her little daughter, and the expense of living in these times of growing inflation and continuous litigation. In addition, the Court took into account the level of life in Belagavi and concluded that the Family Court had properly used its discretion in awarding the previously mentioned interim support. As a result, the Court denied the current petition.
