Karnataka High Court: The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and J.M. Khazi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking permanent alimony from his divorced wife as she is employed as an Assistant Manager in a Co-operative Society. The Court held that the husband being an able-bodied person has the ability to earn and the salary of the wife must go in taking care of the son born out of the wedlock and thus, is not entitled to seek permanent alimony from his divorced wife.
The wife left the matrimonial home back in February 1994 prior to delivery of the child. However, despite the birth of a son, wife did not join the matrimonial home.
A petition was filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage and also a petition seeking permanent alimony. The Family Court by a decree dissolved the marriage but did not grant the relief with respect to permanent alimony Aggrieved by this dismissal, present appeal was filed seeking the same relief.
The husband contended that the divorced wife is currently working as an Assistant Manager in a Co-operative Society. While the husband lost his job of security guard and is currently unemployed and had no means to maintain himself. This creates an obligation upon the divorced wife to maintain the husband who is unable to maintain himself.
The wife on the other hand countered the contention of the husband that she is working as an Assistant Manager on a meagre salary of Rupees 8,000 and has a 15-year-old son to look after.
The Bench after reviewing the facts noted that the husband is an able-bodied man and has ancestral property, there are lands held by his father and he also has a share in the residential property. The Court also stated that the custody of the child is in the hands of the wife and considerable number of resources are spent for the education of the child and the burden is solely upon the wife. The Court
The Court thus upheld the judgment pronounced by the Family Court.
[T Sadananda Pai v. Sujatha S Pai, MFA No. 1797 of 2021, decided on 01-07-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Nagaraja Hegde, Advocate, for the Appellant;
Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate, for the Respondent.