The Delhi High Court has held a woman leaving her
job to take care of her child as a single parent wasn't voluntary desertion of
work and she was entitled to alimony.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in an order on May 13
said the situation could be viewed as a consequence of the paramount duty to
look after the child.
The court, as a result, refused to set aside a trial
court's order granting interim maintenance to a woman and her minor son.
The husband challenged the trial court's October
2023 order asking him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 7,500 each to his estranged
wife and child.
The high court, however, directed the man to
continue paying the same monthly sum to the woman and pay Rs 4,500 monthly
towards his child.
"It is well settled that the responsibility of
caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with
custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment,
especially in cases where there is no family support to take care of the child
while the mother is at work," the court said.
The verdict, therefore, noted the cessation of
employment by the woman cannot be viewed as "voluntary abandonment of
work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child
care".
The man challenged the trial court's order on the
ground that the woman was highly educated and previously worked as a guest
teacher in a Delhi government school, earning between Rs 40,000 and Rs 50,000
monthly, including tuition money.
He claimed the woman was capable of earning and
maintaining herself and the child, and the case was filed only to harass him.
The man argued that the family court erred in not
considering the fact that the woman left her matrimonial home on her own
volition and did not resume her ties with the husband despite a court order.
He claimed he was willing to reside with her and the
minor child.
The man further said he was practising as an
advocate in Haryana, earning only between Rs 10,000 and Rs 15,000 monthly,
being unable to comply with the trial court's interim maintenance order.
The woman, on the other hand, submitted she was
unable to work owing to her responsibilities towards the child.
She said her past employment wasn't a valid ground
to deny her rightful maintenance and argued since it took long hours to commute
and she couldn't find work near home, she gave up her teaching career.
The court accepted the woman's submission, observing
her explanation to be "reasonable and justified".
The man's income certificate, the bench said, was
not on record and directed the family court to decide afresh the plea for
interim maintenance and the arrangement to continue in the interim.