New Delhi:
A woman’s decision to quit her job to take care of her child is not counted as voluntary unemployment and she will be entitled to alimony, the Delhi High Court has ruled. The court has also insisted that it is not the wife’s earning ability, but her actual income, which should be considered while determining the maintenance amount.
The High Court was hearing a petition by the woman’s regressive husband, challenging the 2023 court order to pay Rs 7,500 to the woman and her six -year -old son. The husband said that he was a lawyer in a district court and earns only Rs 10,000 – Rs 15,000. He said that his astraged wife was highly educated and a month ago she was 40,000-Rupaye Rs 50,000, when she left her teaching job. The petitioner argued that since his astrayed wife is capable of earning, he is not entitled to maintenance. He said that he was struggling economically and emotionally and could not follow the maintenance order.
The couple married in 2016 are living separately from 2017. The woman has accused her partner of cruelty and harassment. Her husband says he was ready to live with his wife and son.
The woman’s lawyer said that her husband is financially stable and in addition to earning from her legal career. “It is argued that the defendant is unable to engage in employment due to his responsibilities at present his minor son, and his previous employment as a teacher may not be a legitimate basis to deny his correct maintenance,” the order said.
The woman said that she was working as a teacher, but had to quit her job as she took a long time to comute and did not get a job near her house. The woman said that she had to leave her teaching career to take care of her minor child as a single parents.
The court said that it explains the arguments of the woman why she left her job “both appropriate and justified”. “It is well decided that the responsibility of taking care of a minor child falls inconsistently on parents with detention, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support to take care of the child, while the mother is at work. In such circumstances, the defendant does not require employment.
Justice Swaroop Kanta Sharma ruled by a Supreme Court that only the ability to acquire is not really the same as earning, and being able to earn alone is not a valid reason to reduce maintenance. “This is not the wife’s potential to earn a potential earning, but at the relevant time is her actual income that is to be considered while determining the amount of maintenance. Thus, the learned family court has seen correctly that there is a physical difference between being” able to earn “and” really earning “.
The court said that the family court evaluated the husband’s monthly income for Rs 30,000 as he had been working since 2010. This, the High Court said, it is not completely inconsistent.
“Keeping in mind the above discussion and keeping in mind the fact that the affidavit of the income filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration, this court is suitable to send the case back to the family court. Gave the date of receipt of this order, “the court said.
Meanwhile, as an interim arrangement, the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of Rs 7,500 per month to the defendant/wife and 4,500/- per month to the respondent number 2/minor child, which will be without prejudice for final determination by the court of the family, and will be adjusted in future maintenance.
