Symbolic photo
The Delhi High Court has said that a woman does not have a ‘voluntary abandonment’ leaving a job to take care of her child, so she is entitled to receive alimony. Justice Swarnakanta Sharma said in an order issued on 13 May that the situation can be seen as a result of the ultimate duty of taking care of the child. Along with this, the court refused to dismiss the order of the lower court to interim maintenance to a woman and her minor son.
What is the whole matter?
The woman’s husband challenged the lower court’s October 2023 order in the High Court, asking her (husband) to give a living allowance of Rs 7,500 per month to his wife and child living separately. The High Court directed the appellant husband to continue to give the woman a monthly amount fixed by the lower court, as well as give a separate Rs 4,500 per month for her child. The court said, “It is a fully established fact that the responsibility of taking care of a minor child is unevenly on the mother or father, which often limits their capacity of full -time employment, especially in cases where there is no support of the family in the care of her child while being on the mother’s job.”
‘I used to earn 40 -50 thousand, why should I give alimony’
The judgment states that the abandoning employment by the woman cannot be considered as “voluntary abandonment of work”, but it is considered essential for the ultimate duty of child care. The person challenged the order of the lower court on the grounds that women were higher education and earlier worked as a guest teacher in a government school in Delhi, making her earning 40,000 to 50,000 rupees including tuition fees per month. The husband claimed that the woman was able to earn and maintain herself and the child, but a petition was filed with the intention of harassing her (husband).
The appellant had argued that the Family Court did not consider the fact that the woman had left her in -laws on her own free will and despite the court order, she did not resume her matrimonial relations with her husband. The husband claimed that he was ready to live with his wife and minor child. The person also said that he is practicing as a lawyer in Haryana and earns only Rs 10,000 to 15,000 per month, so he is unable to follow the order of the lower court with interim maintenance.
What did the woman argue?
On the other hand, the woman argued that she was unable to work due to her responsibilities towards the child. He said that his previous employment is not a valid basis for depriving him of proper maintenance. He argued that since he used to take a lot of time to move and he could not get work near the house, he left his teaching career. The court accepted the woman’s argument and found her explanation “logical and justified”. The bench said that the person’s income certificate is not in the record. The High Court directed the Family Court to take a fresh decision to continue the system in interim maintenance and to continue the system in the interim period. (With language inputs)
Also read-
‘In the current situation, their morale should not be dropped’, why did the Supreme Court say this on women military officers?
What did the widow of the doctor say that the Supreme Court provoked the Uttarakhand government, said- give 1 crore including interest
Latest india news
