Telangana High Court Orders Care for Parents

“Though the learned Family Court is right in recording that the Revisionist No.1/wife had concealed material facts regarding her entire education and qualification, it cannot be ignored that the Opposite Party No.2/husband has also made false statement on affidavit denying fatherhood of the minor child only to deny the payment of maintenance towards his wife and minor child. There is also no specific finding regarding proof of gainful employment of the Revisionist No.1/wife.”

“It is also evident that the maintenance amount awarded to the Revisionist No.2/minor son of Rs. 3,000/- per month is a meager amount considering that the boy is an adolescent needing support to study well and grow in a healthy environment. The revisionist wife is entitled to maintenance from the husband even if she has the capacity to work.”

“It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children, and are unable to be gainfully employed. It is, therefore, misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualification of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. When a marital discord arises and parties get separated, then the very sacrifice is often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband. Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face.”