New Delhi:
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.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
