The Orissa High Court recently observed that well-qualified men who choose to remain idle just to avoid paying maintenance to their wives and children deserve to be strongly criticised [Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur]..Justice G Satapathy said that while the law can definitely come to the rescue of someone who has failed to find a job despite making sincere efforts, it cannot be used to help those who choose to be idle to merely frustrate the effort of others. "Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification and prospect to earn is other thing and if a husband being well qualified sufficient enough to earn sits idle only to shift the burden on the wife and expects 'dole' by remaining entangled in litigation should not only be deprecated, but also be discouraged inasmuch as law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles. A person who is well qualified and was also in job earlier, but remains idle by quitting the job without any logic only to shift or avoiding the responsibility of maintenance of the wife cannot be appreciated in a civilized society," the Court said. .Law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles.Orissa High Court.Interestingly, Justice Satapathy penned a judgment last month in which he also deprecated wives who chose to remain jobless solely to get maintenance from their husbands for sustenance. .Law does not favour educated wife not working only to claim maintenance: Orissa High Court.The Court made the observation while considering a petition filed by a husband challenging a family court order directing him to pay ₹15,000 per month to his wife and daughter as pendentelite maintenance (maintenance to be paid pending the outcome of a litigation) and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.The husband claimed that he had resigned from his job due to the trauma inflicted by his wife and, therefore, had no income to pay the maintenance. He added that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, there is no provision to order maintenance for children. Yet, the family court had taken into consideration the maintenance of his daughter, he said. Therefore, he sought an order from the High Court to reduce the maintenance amount to ₹5,000.On the other hand, the wife told the Court that the husband was not only well-qualified but was an electrical engineer with 32 years of experience in a reputed organization..The High Court first rejected the argument of the husband with regard to Section 24, stating that the objective behind the provision implicitly includes providing for the needs and education of children as well. .The Court then noted that the wife had moved the family court for divorce in 2016 and later for pendelite maintenance as well. However, by the husband's own disclosure, he has been unemployed only since March 2023. He also claimed to be supporting his ill father. The Court said that in its experience, spouses in matrimonial proceedings do not disclose their true incomes. In this case, the Court also noted that the husband was qualified and experienced enough to get a job."At the cost of repetition, this Court with annoyance needs it to emphasize that spouses having high qualification taking plea of unemployment with no income without any sincere efforts needs to be condemned," the Court added. .Spouses having high qualification taking plea of unemployment with no income without any sincere efforts needs to be condemned.Orissa High Court.The Court, accordingly, dismissed the husband's plea. .The husband was represented by advocate S Sharma and the wife by advocate A Routray..[Read Judgment]
