INTRODUCTION
This appeal before Kerala high court against the vide the order of the learned Family Court dated 30.11.2019 challenging the maintenance order. This decision emphasises that if the individual is having all the capabilities and without any incapabilities to earn can’t use the defence of “inadequate resources” in providing maintenance to ex-wife and four children. This decision further ensures that all the maintenance claims are met.
BACKGROUND
The case involves a married couple got divorce and the family court ordered the husband to pay rupees 5000 per month and rupees 4000 per month to all four children’s which is a minimum amount and barely sufficient for sustenance of the wife and his four children. In the appeal before the Kerala court challenging the maintenance order on the ground no adequate resources to fulfil the maintenance order by the husband in the present case. He contended that the order passed by the family court is excessive and beyond his capacity to afford.
KEY POINTS
Obligation to the husband:
the Kerala high court reiterated the importance of the maintenance to the beneficiaries in the present case it is his ex-wife and four children. The obligant that is the husband in the present case when he as the capacity and have no physical incapability to earn can’t refuse from paying maintenance by stating the defence no adequate resources. The Kerala high court further emphasized that the individual should not remain idle or earn solely for the betterment of his own life.
Impact of divorce
In this era of live impact of divorce likely fall more on the women in that relationship. The women are the one who undergo lot of emotional traumas post-divorce from the marital life.
Precedent case laws
The Kerala high court referred the judgment held in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the man with all the capability and no physical inabilities should fulfil the order of maintenance to his ex-wife and children. Additionally, the Kerala high court referred the case Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Others where the supreme court stated that right to maintenance in the fundamental right of the constitution of India.
Maintenaning second family
The Kerala high court rejected the claim made by the appellant stating that he has to maintenance his second family and it is unable for him to pay maintenance for the first marriage ex-wife and four children. The court emphasis that it is immaterial to defend stating his responsibilities towards the second marriage.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
Through this decision by the Kerala high court the highlighted the importance of maintenance after divorce and the mental trauma of the women in the relationship after divorce. The court held that right to maintenance is a fundamental right of the constitution.
CONCLUSIONS
The Kerala high court rejected the appeal by the appellant challenging the vide order passed by the family court in allowing minimum maintenance. This decision of the Kerala high court reiterated the fact that the husband can’t defend on the ground of inadequate of resources when he has the capability to earn without any physical incapabilities.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: MUTHULAKSHMI B
