Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has reiterated that an able-bodied man cannot shirk his legal obligation to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and children by claiming a lack of income, particularly when he is not physically incapacitated and capable of earning. The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha delivered the verdict while dismissing a revision petition challenging an earlier order by the Family Court.

Case Background

The petitioner, a 36-year-old man named Shamshad C., sought to overturn the Family Court’s decision, which directed him to pay maintenance of ₹5,000 per month to his estranged wife and ₹4,000 each to their four minor children. The petitioner argued that the amounts were excessive and beyond his financial capacity. He claimed his income was minimal, asserting that he worked in a shop run by his brother after his own business was shut down. Additionally, he pointed out that his remarriage and responsibilities toward his new family compounded his financial strain. The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner had deliberately understated his income and was capable of providing for his first family. They highlighted that he had no physical incapacitation that would prevent him from earning adequately.

Observations by the Court

The court firmly rejected the petitioner’s claims, emphasizing that maintenance payments must prioritize the basic needs and sustenance of the wife and children. Quoting from its judgment, the bench observed, “The defence of ‘no resource’ is untenable, particularly when the obligant is capable of earning, without any physical incapacitation.” It further stated, “Otherwise, it would be open to the obligant not to work; or lie idle; or choose to earn solely for himself/herself and then impel the defence of lack of adequate resources. This is impermissible in the constitutional and statutory Scheme of this Nation.” The court observed that even the petitioner’s claim of limited income was unsubstantiated. Documents and evidence, including business records and photographs, revealed discrepancies in his assertion that his business had ceased operations. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had failed to provide credible evidence to support his claim of earning only ₹22,000 per month.

Impact of Remarriage

Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding his remarriage and additional family responsibilities, the court was unequivocal: “It was the choice of the petitioner to marry again and have another family; and surely he should, therefore, be bound to its consequences and cannot be allowed to resile from his obligations to the respondents herein.”

Women and Maintenance: A Fundamental Right

The judgment also highlighted the societal challenges faced by women in divorce proceedings. Justice Ramachandran noted, “Ending a marriage is traumatic for most; and it is exacerbated for women who have to navigate settlement terms and follow up on sums for maintenance of themselves and their children.” Reiterating the principle established in Supreme Court rulings, including Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & others [(2024) LiveLaw (SC) 977], the court affirmed that basic maintenance is integral to the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment explicitly referenced the Supreme Court’s stance that “the right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants.”

Quantum of Maintenance

The court also reviewed the amounts awarded by the Family Court, noting that they were minimal and barely sufficient for the sustenance of the wife and children. The bench observed, “It is unimaginable in these days that a child or an adult can sustain with an amount as low as ₹5,000/- or ₹4,000/-.” The court concluded that the maintenance granted was not excessive but essential to meet basic requirements such as education, food, medicines, and other necessities. Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s order in its entirety, reiterating that an able-bodied man has a legal and moral duty to support his family, regardless of his personal choices or financial challenges.

Cause Title:  X. v. Y and Others

Case No: RPFC NO. 223 OF 2020

Date: December-09-2024

Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha

[Read/Download order]