Well-qualified men who decide to be unemployed in order to avoid providing maintenance to their wives and children should data-face harsh criticism, according to a recent ruling by the orissa High Court. While the law can undoubtedly benefit someone who has been unsuccessful in finding employment despite making earnest attempts, Justice G. Satapathy stated that it cannot be utilized to assist those who want to stay idle in order to just thwart the efforts of others.
"Sitting idle with qualifications and the potential to earn money is one thing, but being unemployed is quite another. If a husband is qualified enough to earn money but chooses to do nothing but shift the burden to his wife and expect "dole" by getting involved in legal disputes, this should not only be discouraged but also deprecated because just as the law never helps lazy people, it also does not intend to create an army of self-made lazy idlers.  In a civilized society, it is unacceptable for someone who is highly qualified and has held a job in the past to remain inactive by leaving their position without cause or to avoid paying their wife's maintenance, the court said.
 
High court of orissa The law never encourages indolence, and it has no intention of producing a large number of self-made lazy people.
It's interesting to note that in a ruling last month, Justice Satapathy also disparaged spouses who opted to stay unemployed in order to get maintenance from their husbands for subsistence.
 
While examining a petition filed by a husband contesting a family court order requiring him to pay his wife and daughter ₹15,000 a month in pendentelite maintenance (maintenance to be paid pending the outcome of a litigation) and ₹10,000 for litigation expenses, the court made the observation.
The husband stated that he had no money to pay the upkeep because he had quit his work because of the pain his wife had caused him.  He continued by saying that no clause in Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act allows for the ordering of child maintenance.  However, he claimed that the family court had taken his daughter's maintenance into account.  He therefore asked the high court to lower the maintenance payment to ₹5,000.
 
However, the wife informed the court that her husband was not only well qualified but also had 32 years of experience as an electrical engineer working for a reputable company.
The husband's argument on Section 24 was initially dismissed by the high court, which held that the provision's implied goal includes meeting children's needs and educating them.
 
The wife had petitioned the family court for a divorce in 2016 and then for pendelite maintenance, the court then remarked.  However, the husband has only been unemployed since march 2023, according to his own report. In addition, he said he was helping his sick father.
 
According to the court, in its experience, spouses do not reveal their actual incomes during marital proceedings.  In this instance, the court also observed that the husband had sufficient training and work experience to secure employment.
"At the cost of repetition, this court with annoyance needs it to emphadata-size that spouses having high qualification taking the plea of unemployment with no income without any sincere efforts needs to be condemned," the court stated.
 
Orissa High Court: It is necessary to denounce highly qualified spouses who claim jobless without any income and without making any real attempts.
As a result, the court rejected the husband's request.
 
Advocate S Sharma represented the husband, and Advocate A Routray represented the woman.