Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing a claim made by the woman’s husband that she was ‘lazing around’ even though she was qualified to take up employment and earn money to support their children.

The Court was hearing a petition by the woman challenging a family court order that directed her husband to pay her ₹18,000 per month as interim maintenance during the pendency of their matrimonial dispute, as opposed to the ₹36,000 she had sought.

“The wife-mother admittedly has quit the job to take care of the children and taking care of the children cannot be taking care of mere existence. It is shrouded by countless responsibilities and necessary expenditure from time to time. The wife, as a homemaker and mother, works indefatigably round the clock. The respondent being the husband, cannot be seen to contend that the wife is lazing around and not earning money to take care of the children, as observed hereinabove, taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job,” the order dated February 28 stated.

The judge proceeded to enhance the interim maintenance payable to the woman from ₹18,000 to ₹36,000.

The woman’s counsel took the Court through the family court order and documents to the petition to demonstrate that the respondent (husband) was employed by Canara Bank and earned close to ₹90,000 a month.

He mentioned that although the woman was qualified to work, she quit her job because her husband asked her to take care of their kids. He added that the husband was not covering the children’s school fees and other expenses.

The husband’s counsel opposed the enhancement of maintenance and added that the petitioner-woman was not a ‘dutiful wife.’ He asserted that the husband’s job was uncertain and could be lost anytime. Hence, he could not afford to pay more than the amount set by the family court, the lawyer argued.

Furthermore, he stated that the woman had previously worked as a lecturer and, therefore, had the ability to work and earn money independently without relying on maintenance. He also argued that the husband was responsible for taking care of his elderly mother.

The Court noted that the woman quitting her job at a request by her husband was a matter of record.

Further, based on the Supreme Court decisions in Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan and Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan, the Court emphasized that maintenance awarded to the wife and children must correspond to the cost of living and the standard of life they had when they lived with the husband.

Therefore, the Court held that the family court had erred in granting maintenance of only ₹18,000 per month as opposed to the ₹36,000 sought by the petitioner.

The court proceeded to dismiss the husband’s argument that he was in an unstable job. The Court observed that the husband was an employee at Canara Bank, a Government of India undertaking, working in the cadre of Manager and earning beyond ₹70,000 a month.

“He is in a job that offers security of tenure. The pay that he receives can never be reduced; it can only grow. Therefore, those submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/husband are to be rejected as misleading and mischievous,” the Court recorded.

The Court noted that the woman had quit her job to take care of her children, which is not just taking care of their mere existence but involves countless responsibilities and round-the-clock work.

Therefore, the Court rejected the contentions of the husband and allowed the woman’s petition. Consequently, it enhanced the interim maintenance from ₹18,000 to ₹36,000.