Summary
The Orissa High Court refused to reduce the ₹15,000 per month maintenance that Bhupendra Singh Notey was ordered to pay his estranged wife and daughter. He argued he was unemployed and couldn’t afford it, but the court ruled that he was capable of earning and must continue payments. The judgment highlights how men often bear the financial burden in matrimonial cases, even when struggling.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The Family Court, Rourkela, ordered Bhupendra Singh Notey to pay ₹15,000 per month to his wife and child, plus ₹10,000 in legal expenses.
- He argued that he resigned from his job due to mental stress and was currently unemployed, making the maintenance amount too high.
- He also claimed his wife had an income, earning ₹23,334 per month, so she didn’t need support.
- His wife responded that he is an experienced Electrical Engineer with 32 years of work and can easily find a job.
- He requested the court to reduce maintenance to ₹5,000, considering his financial struggles.
The High Court refused, saying he had the ability to earn and must support his family.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Allows maintenance for a dependent spouse.
- Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Provides for child maintenance.
- Article 227 of the Constitution – High Court’s power to review lower court decisions.
The court ruled that child maintenance can be included under Section 24, even if not mentioned directly.
Arguments of Both Sides
Petitioner’s Arguments (Husband’s Side)
- His wife was delaying the case on purpose.
- He left his job due to stress and had no income.
- Child maintenance is not covered under Section 24, so he shouldn’t have to pay for his daughter.
- His wife was earning well, so she didn’t need support.
Respondent’s Arguments (Wife’s Side)
- The husband is highly qualified and can earn, even if unemployed.
- His wife and child must maintain the same standard of living as before the separation.
- The Supreme Court allows child maintenance under Section 24, when read along with Section 26.
Court’s Key Observations
- Men cannot refuse to work just to avoid paying maintenance.
- A qualified man is expected to earn, even if he is currently jobless.
- A father is responsible for his child’s well-being, including education and living expenses.
- The ₹15,000 monthly maintenance and ₹10,000 legal costs were reasonable, based on his past earnings.
The court dismissed his plea, stating that the Family Court’s decision was fair.
Final Judgment
The Orissa High Court ruled that the man must continue paying maintenance, even if he is currently unemployed. The judgment highlights how courts often place the financial burden on men, assuming they will always be able to earn.
- Men are expected to pay, even if jobless.
- Financial struggles of men are often ignored in court.
- The wife’s income was not considered while deciding maintenance.
Comments from the Author of this website
While financial support is important, this ruling raises concerns about fairness for men in maintenance cases:
- Men are forced to pay, even when they claim hardship.
- Courts assume men will always have an income, ignoring real financial struggles.
- The wife’s earning capacity was overlooked, making it a one-sided decision.
- Child maintenance was added under Section 24, stretching the law beyond its intent.
Final Thoughts
Courts must treat men fairly and not assume they are solely responsible for financial support, especially when they are struggling or unemployed. The legal system heavily favors women, often ignoring a man’s hardships while forcing him to pay. False claims and unfair maintenance orders have become tools of harassment, leaving innocent men financially and emotionally devastated. Until strict laws punish false accusations and ensure a balanced approach, men will continue to be victims of legal bias and exploitation.
Read Complete Judgement Here