BENGALURU: The Karnataka high court dismissed a man’.s claim that he cannot pay maintenance to his wife as he had to clear monthly instalments for an overdraft (OD) facility availed by him, reports P Vasanth Kumar.
Justice M Nagaprasanna stated in the order that if the petitioner has the resources to pay the OD facility, then there is no reason to believe his claims that he cannot support his wife.
The petitioner, a 36-year-old resident of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, got married to a woman from Udupi on November 29, 2021. Before the marriage, she worked as a guest lecturer but left the job at her husband’s instructions.
When the marriage ran into trouble, the wife moved to her parents’ house. She also filed a petition under Section 125(1) of CrPC, seeking maintenance. On May 12, 2023, the Udupi court awarded Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance.
Challenging the order, the husband argued that he had retired from the partnership firm, which was his source of income. He added that he currently has no job, and to add to that, he is obligated to make monthly payments for the overdraft facility availed by him when he was a partner in the firm.
However, after perusing the materials on record, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that when the wife filed the maintenance petition, the petitioner- husband was a partner and was earning a certain amount of income and the same is recorded by the Udupi court in its order.
“After the court’s order, the petitioner has retired from the firm and is now trying to project his retirement as an impediment to pay maintenance to the wife. Also, in the petition, the petitioner states that he has availed of an OD facility and is paying monthly instalments,” the judge further noted in his order.
Citing the Supreme Court order in Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg case, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that the top court of the land had already clarified the position in such matters by emphasising that being able-bodied, a husband is obligated to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and minor child.
Justice M Nagaprasanna stated in the order that if the petitioner has the resources to pay the OD facility, then there is no reason to believe his claims that he cannot support his wife.
The petitioner, a 36-year-old resident of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, got married to a woman from Udupi on November 29, 2021. Before the marriage, she worked as a guest lecturer but left the job at her husband’s instructions.
When the marriage ran into trouble, the wife moved to her parents’ house. She also filed a petition under Section 125(1) of CrPC, seeking maintenance. On May 12, 2023, the Udupi court awarded Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance.
Challenging the order, the husband argued that he had retired from the partnership firm, which was his source of income. He added that he currently has no job, and to add to that, he is obligated to make monthly payments for the overdraft facility availed by him when he was a partner in the firm.
However, after perusing the materials on record, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that when the wife filed the maintenance petition, the petitioner- husband was a partner and was earning a certain amount of income and the same is recorded by the Udupi court in its order.
“After the court’s order, the petitioner has retired from the firm and is now trying to project his retirement as an impediment to pay maintenance to the wife. Also, in the petition, the petitioner states that he has availed of an OD facility and is paying monthly instalments,” the judge further noted in his order.
Citing the Supreme Court order in Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg case, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that the top court of the land had already clarified the position in such matters by emphasising that being able-bodied, a husband is obligated to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and minor child.
