Hindu Marriage Law | A working husband who is ready to work can’t declare everlasting upkeep from his spouse: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an able-bodied man who is able to work cannot apply for permanent alimony when divorcing his wife.

A divisional bench of Judge Alok Aradhe and Judge JM Khazi dismissed the appeal of a T. Sadananda Pai seeking permanent alimony from his wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Law.

The board said: “The applicant is a capable person and has the ability to earn. The Family Court was therefore correct in dismissing the applicant’s application under Section 25 of the Act.”

According to the applicant’s husband, the respondent’s wife left the family home in February 1994 before the child was born. It is also undisputed that a son was born to the parties from the marriage. Despite the birth of a son, the defendant did not enter the marital home.

The applicant later submitted an application for dissolution of the marriage. In the above proceedings, the applicant submitted an application for permanent maintenance from his wife. The family court, according to the judgment of August 19, 2015, dissolved the marriage by means of a divorce decree. However, the applicant’s application under Section 25 of the Act was dismissed.

It was submitted that the defendant (ex-wife) is employed as a deputy manager in a cooperative. The applicant was employed on a contract basis as a guard at a temple, but has lost the job and has no means of supporting himself. The defendant is thus obliged to pay maintenance to the complainant.

The woman claimed that she was employed as an assistant manager in a cooperative in Bhramavara with a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000 and had to look after the son by the marriage, who is around 15 years old.


The Chamber noted that in determining the question of alimony, the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the spouse, the independent income and the applicant’s assets are relevant factors to be considered.

It went on to say: “In the present case, the applicant, who is an adult at his cross-examination, admitted that he had an interest in his father’s property and that he also owned an interest in a dwelling house. It was further acknowledged that the above properties are valuable properties.”

It also took into account that the complainant did not take care of the child and that raising the son requires considerable effort and that the respondent is burdened with it.

Accordingly, it ruled: “For the reasons set out above, we see no reason to intervene in the judgment under appeal and the injunction.”


Cash register number: MFA NO.1797 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

Order date: JULY 1, 2022

Appearing: Counsel NAGARAJA HEGDE for the applicant; Endorse NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY for the defendant

Click here to read/download the judgment

Comments are closed.