The High Court of Karnataka made a noteworthy decision by ruling that a husband is not obligated to pay maintenance, despite a wife's plea for support, citing the husband's 75% disability as grounds for exemption.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the court, emphasized that due to the husband's disability, he is unable to seek employment to provide maintenance for his wife and child. Therefore, the court ruled that no directive can be issued to compel the husband to pay maintenance to the wife.

Involving three writ petitions filed by a married couple, Mr. Pankaj Singh Sengar and Mrs. Priyanka Singh, the case revolved around their marital dispute. Married on May 16th, 2011, with a daughter from their union, discord arose leading the husband to seek annulment of the marriage. He claimed that the wife had voluntarily departed from their matrimonial home.

During these legal proceedings, the wife filed for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Initially, the court awarded her monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000. However, the husband's non-compliance sparked a dispute over unpaid arrears. Despite Mrs. Singh's efforts to claim these arrears, the court dismissed her calculations, leading her to pursue a claim for increased maintenance.

Additionally, the wife asserted that the husband had abandoned her while she was pregnant with their child. During this time, she supported herself independently without any assistance from the husband, who declined to provide maintenance for either her or their child. As a result, the wife sought a favorable order to increase the maintenance grant.

Meanwhile, the husband experienced a stroke, which left him with a 75% disability and compelled him to resign from his job. Allegations of non-payment of maintenance prompted the wife to initiate an execution petition to recover arrears. Subsequently, on February 5th, 2016, the court issued an order directing the husband's father to settle the arrears. Failure to comply resulted in fines and arrest warrants being issued against the husband on July 12th, 2017, and August 10th, 2017, respectively.

Concurrently, in 2017, the husband filed a Writ Petition seeking to recall the maintenance order issued on August 10th, 2017. The husband's counsel argued that "maintenance today is an unattainable expectation for the husband, given his 75% disability, which renders him unable to secure employment. He is no longer physically capable of seeking employment to support his wife and child."

After carefully considering arguments from both parties, the court stated, "It is an undisputed fact that the husband suffers from a disability of 75%, which completely undermines his ability to be considered an 'able-bodied man.' This disability is acknowledged by both parties."

The court stressed that “Maintenance cannot spring in thin air. The primary factor is whether the husband is an able bodied man to maintain the wife or the child.”

The court consequently concluded that considering the petitioner's disability, along with cognitive dysfunction, the trial court should have approved the application seeking recall of the maintenance order. However, the recall should have been limited to the date when the husband became disabled, which was December 2013. Since arrears had accrued by that time, the court should have taken this into account in its decision-making process.

The court also observed that compelling the husband to pay the arrears, as requested by the wife, would undeniably worsen his already challenging circumstances, exacerbated by his 75% disability. It is unreasonable to expect him to fulfill the role of an able-bodied individual capable of supporting his wife and child. Moreover, the court highlighted, "The wife is employed or, if not, is fully qualified and capable of earning." This underscores that the orders sought by the wife cannot be granted.

Therefore, the court ruled that regarding the provision of maintenance for the child, it is deemed appropriate to specify that the father of the husband/petitioner should undertake responsibility for the grandchild's needs, including her education and all crucial aspects of her upbringing and growth. "This is the sole relief to which the wife/respondent is entitled in the present case," the court concluded.

The wife's plea was consequently deemed untenable and rejected, with the order that maintenance payments be made up to the date when the husband became disabled. Additionally, the court quashed the execution petition filed by the wife.

Cause Title: Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar [WP 48615 of 2024]