In an order passed recently, the Karnataka High Court made note to correct certain “misplaced” notions regarding the work of a housewife..Justice Raghvendra S Chauhan made pertinent observations on this issue while hearing a case against a Family Court verdict, which had ordered a husband to pay travel expenses to the tune of Rs 32, 144 to his wife in a divorce case..The challenged order had been passed last February on an application made by the wife for two days’ worth of travel expenses. Whereas the wife resided in Uttar Pradesh, the divorce proceedings were underway in Bengaluru, Karnataka..Previously, the Supreme Court had also directed the husband to pay “requisite expenditure” to the wife for travel expenses incurred by her to attend the divorce proceedings in Bengaluru..In the challenge made to the Family’s court’s verdict, the petitioner through Advocate Fayaz Sab BG, contended that the respondent-wife was merely a housewife. Therefore, it was submitted, that she is free to travel by train, rather than take a flight to attend the proceedings in Bengaluru..The Court however took the view that the wife’s status as a housewife was being dismissed very lightly, when it remarked,.“The first contention raised by the learned counsel that merely because the respondent happens to be a housewife she is free to travel by train, the said contention is highly misplaced. For, the said plea terms the housewife as ‘free’.”.Rather, it was pointed out that such notions only reveal deficiencies in understanding gender justice..“Such a contention merely shows the lack of understanding about the work being carried out by ‘the housewife’..It also reveals the lack of gender justice, where large number of persons continue to carry a misnomer that a housewife is “free”. Needless to say, a housewife is as busy as a professional person. After all, she is responsible for looking after the members of the family, and for running the house. .To look after the members of the family, and to run the house is not an easy task. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is clearly untenable.”.This apart, Justice Chauhan noted that the Supreme Court did not intend to restrict the term “requisite expenditure” to be paid only towards train travel. Moreover, it was noted that it was not left to the husband to decide the mode of travel to be undertaken by the wife..“Admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has used the words “requisite expenditure” when the petitioner (wife) is required to travel to attend the case. However, the Apex Court has not limited the ‘requisite expenditure “to merely to train travel….…It is not for the petitioner to decide as to what mode of transportation the respondent should take in order to attend the hearing. Therefore, the offer made by the petitioner is clearly unacceptable. If the respondent decides to travel by air, and not by train, even then the petitioner cannot escape the liability to pay the ‘requisite traveling expenditure’.”.In the instant case, the Court also noted that the wife had presented sufficient records to prove that the amount in question was actually incurred towards attending the divorce proceedings..Therefore, the Court proceeded to dismiss the husband’s petition, and upheld the Family Court’s verdict holding the payment of the said travel expenditure as being legally justified..Read Order below:
In an order passed recently, the Karnataka High Court made note to correct certain “misplaced” notions regarding the work of a housewife..Justice Raghvendra S Chauhan made pertinent observations on this issue while hearing a case against a Family Court verdict, which had ordered a husband to pay travel expenses to the tune of Rs 32, 144 to his wife in a divorce case..The challenged order had been passed last February on an application made by the wife for two days’ worth of travel expenses. Whereas the wife resided in Uttar Pradesh, the divorce proceedings were underway in Bengaluru, Karnataka..Previously, the Supreme Court had also directed the husband to pay “requisite expenditure” to the wife for travel expenses incurred by her to attend the divorce proceedings in Bengaluru..In the challenge made to the Family’s court’s verdict, the petitioner through Advocate Fayaz Sab BG, contended that the respondent-wife was merely a housewife. Therefore, it was submitted, that she is free to travel by train, rather than take a flight to attend the proceedings in Bengaluru..The Court however took the view that the wife’s status as a housewife was being dismissed very lightly, when it remarked,.“The first contention raised by the learned counsel that merely because the respondent happens to be a housewife she is free to travel by train, the said contention is highly misplaced. For, the said plea terms the housewife as ‘free’.”.Rather, it was pointed out that such notions only reveal deficiencies in understanding gender justice..“Such a contention merely shows the lack of understanding about the work being carried out by ‘the housewife’..It also reveals the lack of gender justice, where large number of persons continue to carry a misnomer that a housewife is “free”. Needless to say, a housewife is as busy as a professional person. After all, she is responsible for looking after the members of the family, and for running the house. .To look after the members of the family, and to run the house is not an easy task. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is clearly untenable.”.This apart, Justice Chauhan noted that the Supreme Court did not intend to restrict the term “requisite expenditure” to be paid only towards train travel. Moreover, it was noted that it was not left to the husband to decide the mode of travel to be undertaken by the wife..“Admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has used the words “requisite expenditure” when the petitioner (wife) is required to travel to attend the case. However, the Apex Court has not limited the ‘requisite expenditure “to merely to train travel….…It is not for the petitioner to decide as to what mode of transportation the respondent should take in order to attend the hearing. Therefore, the offer made by the petitioner is clearly unacceptable. If the respondent decides to travel by air, and not by train, even then the petitioner cannot escape the liability to pay the ‘requisite traveling expenditure’.”.In the instant case, the Court also noted that the wife had presented sufficient records to prove that the amount in question was actually incurred towards attending the divorce proceedings..Therefore, the Court proceeded to dismiss the husband’s petition, and upheld the Family Court’s verdict holding the payment of the said travel expenditure as being legally justified..Read Order below:
