A sessions court here has asked a magisterial court to award interim maintenance to a woman saying, “Husband cannot be permitted to desert wife and children on the ground of unemployment” in a city like Delhi where cost of living is high.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Lokesh Kumar Sharma allowed the appeal of the woman against the trial court order, which had dismissed her plea for interim maintenance, saying without the aid of evidence, it was not possible to ascertain the exact income of husband, who claimed to be unemployed.
The magisterial court had, however, awarded her the custody of her minor child.
“Husband cannot be permitted to desert the wife and kids on the ground of unemployment, in a city like Delhi, where the cost of living is high,” the ASJ said.
Noting that the magisterial court had awarded the woman the custody of her child, the judge said that she should have been granted reasonable amount towards her maintenance.
“So far as the unemployment and inability of the woman to earn is concerned it is the settled principle of law that an able bodied man is presumed to be capable to maintain his wife and children,” the ASJ said.
The court remanded back the matter to the trial court with the directions to consider the matter afresh and also to award an interim maintenance amount after fairly assessing the present days circumstances.
“The interim maintenance as awarded should be a realistic one and not merely to serve the purpose of disposal of the case so that the appellant (woman) should get some substantial justice from the court,” it said.
The woman in her plea claimed that her husband has a good social status and has several properties in his name and income from various sources.
“It is the settled principle of law that an able bodied man is presumed to be capable to maintain his wife and children.” What about the other equally compelling settled principle of law that an able bodied woman is presumed to be capable of maintaining herself and her children? Is it rule of law or law of convenience? What stopped the court from asking the able-bodied wife to earn to maintain herself? When will court stop treating husband as ATM Machine? When one wheel (husband) is unable to take the responsibility, what stopped the court from asking the other wheel (wife) to step in? Why couldn’t court “empower” the wife to take the responsibility of the house?