‘Law Does Not Support Laziness’: Orissa HC Slams Jobless Husband in Maintenance Case

Bhubaneswar, 13th March 2025: The Orissa High Court has ruled that a well-educated husband who deliberately remains unemployed to evade his financial obligations towards his wife cannot be condoned in a civilized society. While addressing a dispute over maintenance, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy stated:

“Being unemployed is one thing, but willfully avoiding work despite having the qualifications and opportunities to earn is another. If a highly qualified husband chooses idleness merely to shift the burden onto his wife and expects financial support while prolonging legal battles, such behavior must not only be criticized but actively discouraged. The law does not support laziness or those who deliberately shirk their responsibilities.”

The case stemmed from a petition filed by the wife before the Family Court in Jabalpur in 2016 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking to nullify or dissolve the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a).

She also sought interim maintenance and legal expenses under Section 24 of the Act for herself and their child. However, the case was later transferred to the Family Court in Rourkela by the Supreme Court.

In her affidavit, the wife acknowledged that she worked as a private school teacher, earning ₹23,334 per month. Meanwhile, the husband declared himself unemployed with no income since March 1, 2023.

After reviewing the circumstances, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance from April 22, 2017, and ₹10,000 towards legal expenses. Dissatisfied with this order, the husband filed a writ petition challenging the decision.

The Court noted that the petitioner held a Bachelor of Engineering (Power Electronics) degree and had prior work experience. It emphasized that while the law protects individuals genuinely unable to earn despite sincere efforts, it does not extend support to those who willingly refuse to work to evade financial responsibility.

“A person who is well-qualified and previously employed, but deliberately resigns without justification to avoid paying maintenance, cannot be excused,” the Court observed.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 (SC) 485, Justice Satapathy reiterated that even if a husband claims he has no income, his potential earning capacity, given his qualifications, must be considered.

“In other words, highly educated spouses who choose idleness instead of seeking employment should not be encouraged,” the Court added.

The judgment highlighted that maintenance should be determined based on factors such as the parties’ standard of living, financial status, and reasonable needs. It also underscored that inflation and the rising cost of living should be taken into account to ensure a standard of living proportional to the husband’s financial capacity and the lifestyle the wife and child were accustomed to before separation.

The husband argued that under Section 24 of the Act, maintenance is intended only for the spouse and does not extend to children. However, the opposite party cited Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 (SC) 969, asserting that minor children are also entitled to interim maintenance under this provision, even though Section 24 does not explicitly mention them.

Agreeing with this argument, the Court stated that Section 24 must be interpreted broadly to include the needs of dependent children.

“The intent of Section 24 is to provide financial support to a spouse without adequate independent income, and this necessity naturally extends to dependent children. Additionally, Section 26 of the Act allows the Court to issue interim orders for the maintenance and education of minor children,” the Court explained.

In this case, despite claiming unemployment, the husband had sought custody of the child by presenting himself as a senior-level professional with sufficient means. However, he contradicted this by claiming joblessness while possessing high qualifications.

“With due emphasis, this Court strongly condemns the tendency of highly qualified spouses to claim unemployment as a pretext for avoiding financial responsibilities,” Justice Satapathy remarked.

Considering the husband’s educational background, previous employment in a reputed organization, and financial standing, along with the reasonable needs of his wife and child, the Court upheld the Family Court’s ruling and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 4283 of 2024
Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Subham Sharma, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Achyutananda Routray, Advocate