Wife Gets ₹27 Lakh By Selling Property Bought By Husband, Still Demands Maintenance? Karnataka High Court Rejects Claim

KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the rejection of a wife's ₹15,000 monthly maintenance claim, finding that she failed to prove cruelty, neglect or that her husband was financially better placed than her, despite receiving ₹27 lakh from a property sale.

Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the wife's revision petition challenging the Mysuru Family Court's July 5, 2022 order rejecting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The couple married in 2001. The wife alleged that her husband physically and mentally harassed her, maintained an extramarital relationship and failed to support her financially. She also claimed their marriage was never consummated.

The wife alleged that her husband earned ₹15,000 monthly as a night watchman and another ₹15,000 from operating a cycle shop, taking his total monthly income to ₹30,000.

However, during cross-examination, she admitted that their married life lasted only three years and that they had no contact thereafter.

The husband denied the cruelty allegations and argued that the wife had already obtained a divorce decree, while her earlier request for permanent alimony had been rejected.

The Court examined registered property documents and the evidence of the wife's two brothers, Siddaraju and Saddalingamurthy.

Their testimony revealed that the husband had sold his ancestral property in Hunsur in September 2012 and used the proceeds to purchase another property in his wife's name in Mysuru.

The wife subsequently sold that property in June 2019. Although the registered sale deed recorded ₹17 lakh, her brothers testified that the actual sale consideration was ₹27 lakh, which she utilised herself.

During cross-examination, the wife admitted selling the property for ₹27 lakh.

Her brothers also testified that she went missing from Mysuru after receiving the money, prompting her husband to lodge a missing-person complaint. The wife denied leaving the matrimonial home in those circumstances but admitted that the police had called her for an enquiry.

While examining her allegations, the High Court observed:

"When the pleadings of the petitioner are looked into, the petitioner made general averments that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, as we find in almost all cases which are filed claiming maintenance."

The Court found no specific incidents explaining how the husband had allegedly subjected her to cruelty or harassment.

It further observed:

"Also, the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent runs a cycle shop and earns. She even failed to establish her version that the respondent is having an extra-marital affair."

The High Court also found that the wife had not established that her husband neglected or refused to maintain her.

The judgment recorded:

"Petitioner failed to establish the aspect of neglect or refusal by the respondent to maintain her. She also failed to establish that the respondent stands in a better footing financially than that of her."

After examining the evidence and the Family Court's findings, the High Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the earlier decision.

Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the wife's revision petition, upholding the Family Court's refusal to direct the husband to pay monthly maintenance.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Wife's Maintenance Claim Rejected: Karnataka High Court upheld the denial of ₹15,000 monthly maintenance.
• ₹27 Lakh Property Sale: Wife admitted receiving ₹27 lakh from selling property.
• Cruelty Allegations Not Proved: Wife failed to provide sufficient evidence against her husband.
• Husband's Income Claims Unsubstantiated: Allegations about his earnings lacked supporting proof.
• Husbands Cannot Be Burdened Without Evidence: Maintenance claims must be decided on proven facts and financial circumstances, not allegations alone