| Font Size |
Justice G Rajasuriya said the husband cannot claim that he was poor, in order to dodge his responsibility of providing monthly maintenance to his wife.
"A husband has to take care of his wife somehow or other even if he is jobless," the Judge.
He was dismissing a civil revision petition filed by the man challenging the March 3 last order of family court, before which the couple have filed divorce petition, directing him to pay Rs 2,000 as interim maintenance.
The Judge also rejected a petition by the woman seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance to Rs 7,000.
The man had pleaded that he did not have the source to pay the maintenance ordered by the lower court.
His wife said the maintenance ordered by the court was too low.
In his order, the Judge said: "A hale and healthy man is expected to work to maintain himself and his dependants. He has to maintain his wife who is incapable of maintaining herself. Somehow or other husband should maintain."
Rejecting the prayer for enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs 2,000 granted by the lower court, he said the plea was justifiable if there was clinching evidence to prove that the husband was well off.
The petitioner did not produce any such evidence to prove that her husband had enough money, he observed and confirmed the maintenance amount granted by the lower court.
Besides, the Judge also directed the man to provide Rs 3,000 to his wife for paying the cost of litigation.
The Judge directed the family court to dispose the divorce petition, pending since 2007, in three months.
what if the wife is capable enough to maintain herself but lazy to even apply for a job, laws says that the man has to maintain his parents, children and his wife, is man considered to be a machine? think we need to change the way we live, everyone should look to maintain them selves, if they incapable or handicapped there should be a helping hand. i dont know the indian law completely but as of i know, these laws should be changed to suit this generation.
sheer misandry , idiotic judgment, "A hale and healthy man is expected to work to maintain himself and his dependants. He has to maintain his wife who is incapable of maintaining herself. Somehow or other husband should maintain." . She is healthy but not able to maintain, man is healthy but he shd maintain her even though she is not in married relationship, judiciary in India has to be exposed, injustice is becoming justice and legal. Its time people shd raise voice against such miscreants.
Yes
everything goes. You please yourself only and no one else. Audience be damned.u
Island sof happiness created in disregard to the big picture
Looking for perfection? That is why he will not take-up permanently with his lover of twenty years
The judge seems to have forgotten the basic rule in marriage. For better or for worse. She is suopoesed to share his fate in all times. If they are divorced the court can fix maintenance nabbed on his income or wealth earned during their cohabitation as it us assumed that she contributed towards it too. However in the tenet of marriage his misfortune must also be shared by her. As her claim is through the institution of marriage. Aberrations like the husband having hidden income or assets, tufting away to relatives, mistresses, second wives or the lady marrying again or earning more than her husband or getting help from lovers exist. Courts must look int all these aspects for justice if the couple wish them to intervene. Murky? Its your own calling because many individuals without work get married and are supported by family or spouse. Ghar jamaai, stay at home husband, rais beta, impotent husband for namesake, wife only to show to the world are all very much in practice. By consent.um
Indian men deserve such type of judgements because they are basically anti-men and have great respect for corrupt judiciary and police. I think Indian men deserve to be put in jail as soon as they reach adulthood.
Where is equality in front of Law between Man & Woman. Why husband without income has to pay? Can woman not earn for living for herself? Are woman perpetually dependant on Man? These are questions which arise from extreemist judgements like this one.
Why a hale and hearty woman cannot maintain herself by the same logic?Our laws and judicial system are totally anti-male and encourage parasitism by pampering unscrupulous women.Does state take responsibility of proving appropriate job to every hale and hearty man? Does judiciary take responsibility of providing timely and affordable justice to all?If the state and the judiciary get away wit their responsibility, then why only husbands are bound to pamper estranged wives?
Mr Judge! What is your opinion about "A HALE AND HEALTHY WOMAN? IS SHE NOT SUPPOSE TO EARN AND MAINTAIN HERSELF?"
A man without absolute no income shouldn't marry in the first place. He should do krichsadhan and live a sadhu life living on alms on mountain or in jungle. If he is victim of a job loss or something he can take time but saying absolute no income is lazy / wrong then how is he surviving ?
I wonder What if both were dependent and had got married? Court would order maintainance ? (what if their gurdians were also dead while matter is in court?)
shame on the hc, they should be the ones to pay the workless wives not the poor guys
Not Acceptable!!!!!!!!! on one side you talk about women being at equal power to men. Then if Man is not earning his wife should be supporting him!!! If not please do remove all reservations for women let them compete with the crowd to get to the post or earn money PLEASE
Dude.. Rejecting court decision is punishable crime.i mean you are saying high court is wrong.. for which you can be punished.
According to Justice Rajasuriya if the man has absolutely no income,no job and possibility he must go to steal or indulge in some illegitimate activity.If he really means so then there will be many more criminals;forced by law.
"A hale and healthy man is expected to work to maintain himself and his dependants" A hale and healthy woman is also expected to work to maintain herself. What right does she have to get money from her husband?
