The Aryavarth Express
Agency (Bengaluru): The Karnataka High Court has allowed the writ petitions filed by a husband challenging the orders of the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance to his wife despite him being 75% disabled. The Court held that in view of the husband’s disability and inability to work, he cannot be treated as an “able-bodied man” and compelled to pay maintenance.
The case pertains to a couple, Pankaj Singh Sengar and Priyanka Singh, who got married in May 2011. The marriage ran into rough weather and in 2012, the husband filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment of marriage on grounds of cruelty. During the pendency of this petition, the wife filed an application seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act.
In November 2012, the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife. However, the husband failed to pay the maintenance, prompting the wife to file an execution petition. She also filed a memo claiming arrears of maintenance of over Rs. 19 lakhs.
The husband, who was working with Textron India Pvt Ltd, suffered a stroke in December 2013 resulting in 75% permanent disability. He resigned from his job in May 2015 owing to his medical condition. The husband was assessed as suffering from “Chronic Neurological Condition” by NIMHANS, Bengaluru and was issued disability certificates by the Central and State Governments certifying 75% disability.
The husband then filed an application before the Family Court seeking recall of the maintenance order in view of his disability. However, this was rejected by the Court. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court challenging this order as well as the warrants issued for recovery of maintenance arrears.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who heard the petitions, noted that the core issue was whether a husband suffering from 75% disability can be directed to pay maintenance. The Court took note of the disability certificates issued to the husband as well as his resignation from employment due to his medical condition.
The Court observed that as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), serious disability or ill-health of a spouse requiring constant care and expenditure is a relevant factor while quantifying maintenance. Referring to the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Indranil Adhikari v. Arunima Adhikary (2023), the Court held that in case of a husband suffering 60% disability, the direction to pay arrear maintenance was set aside.
In the present case, the High Court noted that the husband was suffering from 75% disability and was not in a position to maintain himself, let alone pay maintenance to the wife and child. On the other hand, the wife was found to be well-qualified, holding a Master’s degree in Computer Applications, and was working as a teacher earning sufficient income to maintain herself.
The Court held that in view of the husband’s disability, the Family Court ought to have allowed his application to recall the maintenance order, at least from the date he suffered the disability in December 2013. Setting aside the warrants issued against the husband, the High Court allowed his petitions in part.
“By no means he can be depicted to be an able-bodied man to direct that he should search for such avocation that would enable him to maintain the wife and the child. The wife is earning, even if not earning is completely qualified and is capable of earning,” the Court observed.
At the same time, the High Court directed the father of the husband to take care of the necessities of the couple’s child, including her education and career requirements. To this limited extent, the Court granted relief to the wife.
“Insofar as grant of maintenance to the child is concerned, I deem it appropriate to observe that the father of the husband/petitioner should take care of the grandchild’s necessities including her education and other necessities of her career and all walks of life of the grandchild. This is the only relief that the wife/respondent is entitled to, in the case at hand,” the Court said.
