If a wife earns ₹1.5 lakh monthly, why is a ‘jobless’ husband still expected to pay maintenance? And can property ownership alone make courts assume a man is “not willing to pay the maintenance amount”?
BENGALURU: In a recent order, Justice V Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court refused to increase maintenance in a domestic violence case, for a wife earning a high salary while also denying relief to a husband who claimed he was unemployed.
The case arose from a marriage in April 2009, where the wife alleged harassment and dowry demands. She had earlier approached the court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In 2015, the Magistrate passed an order directing the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month towards rent, ₹4,000 per month as maintenance, and ₹40,000 as compensation. This order was later upheld by the Sessions Court in 2016.
Both parties then approached the High Court. The husband argued that he was completely unemployed and unable to pay any maintenance. He also pointed out that the wife was earning more than ₹1.5 lakh per month and therefore did not require financial support.
On the other hand, the wife claimed that the husband had ancestral and personal property and was hiding his true financial position. She further argued that her income should not disqualify her from receiving maintenance.
After examining both sides, the High Court noted that the husband’s exact share in ancestral property was still not decided and therefore could not be used as a ground to increase maintenance. At the same time, the Court observed that the wife’s own financial records showed that she was capable of spending substantial amounts, even on legal proceedings, which weakened her demand for enhancement.
However, the Court also found that the husband owned one acre of land and had mortgaged it multiple times to raise loans. Despite this, he failed to pay maintenance regularly. On this basis, the Court made a strong observation that his conduct showed he was “not willing to pay the maintenance amount”.
Taking all factors into account, the Court held that since the wife was already earning well and the husband claimed to be jobless, there was no valid reason to increase the maintenance amount. At the same time, the husband’s plea to cancel the maintenance was also rejected.
The High Court dismissed both revision petitions and maintained the earlier order.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 | Allows an aggrieved woman to file a complaint before Magistrate seeking reliefs | Wife filed complaint alleging harassment and sought maintenance, rent, and compensation |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 20 | Provides monetary relief including maintenance and expenses | Court upheld ₹9,000/month (₹5K rent + ₹4K maintenance) awarded earlier |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 22 | Compensation for mental and physical cruelty | ₹40,000 compensation granted by Magistrate and maintained |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Revisional Jurisdiction (Sections 397/401) | Allows higher courts to review correctness of lower court orders | Both husband and wife filed revision petitions; High Court dismissed both |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 23 | Interim and ex parte reliefs by Magistrate | Basis of initial monetary and protective orders passed in favour of wife |
Case Details
- Case Title: Husband/Wife Vs. State (Cross Criminal Revision Petitions in DV matter)
- Court: Karnataka High Court
- Bench: Justice V Srishananda
- Key Facts:
- Marriage: April 2009
- Allegations: Dowry demand and harassment by husband
- Wife’s income: ₹1.5 lakh/month Husband’s claim: Unemployed
Key Takeaways
- Courts continue to impose maintenance obligations on men even when they claim to be unemployed, showing that mere joblessness is not treated as a valid defence.
- A woman earning a high salary does not automatically eliminate the husband’s liability, exposing the one-sided nature of maintenance laws.
- Ownership of even limited property or ability to raise loans is used against men to presume financial capacity.
- At the same time, higher earnings of the wife are used to deny increase in maintenance, creating an inconsistent standard.
- Overall, men remain financially bound in matrimonial disputes regardless of their actual earning condition, highlighting systemic imbalance in enforcement.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
