J&K&L High Court Reiterates:Married Man With Capacity To Earn Obligated To Maintain Wife & Children, Cannot Plead Penury

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case Shashi Paul Singh Vs Gurmeet Paul & Anr observed and has reiterated that once a person enters into wedlock and has decided to raise a family, he cannot turn around and say that he is not ready for performing his moral and legal obligation flowing out of the wedlock as he being in no mood to earn livelihood.
The bench comprising of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed and has relied upon the case Vikram Jamwal v. Geetanjali Rajput and another, wherein it was observed that it is for a person to decide to marry or not to marry, but once if a person decides to marry then he is bound for performing all the duties and discharge all obligations that the society and law expect and require him to discharge.
In the present case, the bench was hearing a petition in terms of which it has been challenged by the petitioner the order of Principal Sessions Judge as a Revisional Court, upholding the order which is passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which awarded maintenance to his wife and daughter (who are living separately from him).
Further, it has been argued by the petitioner that the impugned mechanically fixed quantum of maintenance at an exorbitant rate without taking into consideration his liabilities and which after making all necessary deductions is around Rs. 12000/- only. It was also submitted by him that he is ready to take care of their expenses which are provided if they join his company.
The bench headed by Justice Koul observed while adjudicating upon the matter that it is being a settled law that the nature of duty cast on a person to maintain his wife, child/children and parents that sufficient means has been interpreted for including the capacity to earn and as long as a person is able bodied with capacity to earn, for maintaining his wife, he cannot escape from his legal duty, parents and children, who are being unbale to maintain themselves, on the ground that he does not actually have any income.
Therefore, it has also been noted by the court that the petitioner had himself refused to take the respondents back and thus they are having a sufficient ground for residing separately from the petitioner.
Accordingly, the court found the petition without any merit and the same got dismissed.