BENGALURU: <\/em>In a recent order, Justice V Srishananda<\/strong> of the Karnataka High Court<\/strong> refused to increase maintenance in a domestic violence case<\/strong>, for a wife earning a high salary while also denying relief to a husband who claimed he was unemployed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose from a marriage in April 2009, where the wife alleged harassment and dowry demands.<\/strong> She had earlier approached the court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2015, the Magistrate passed an order directing the husband to pay \u20b95,000 per month towards rent, \u20b94,000 per month as maintenance<\/a>, and \u20b940,000 as compensation. This order was later upheld by the Sessions Court in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both parties then approached the High Court. The husband argued that he was completely unemployed and unable to pay any maintenance<\/strong>. He also pointed out that the wife was earning more than<\/strong> \u20b91.5 lakh per month<\/strong> and therefore did not require financial support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the wife claimed that the husband had ancestral and personal property<\/strong> and was hiding his true financial position. She further argued that her income should not disqualify her from receiving maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining both sides, the High Court noted that the husband\u2019s 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\u2019s own financial records showed that she was capable of spending substantial amounts<\/strong>, even on legal proceedings, which weakened her demand for enhancement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> amount. At the same time, the husband\u2019s plea to cancel the maintenance was also rejected<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court dismissed both revision petitions<\/strong> and maintained the earlier order.<\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n