BENGALURU: <\/em>In a recent judgment, Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao<\/strong> of High Court of Karnataka<\/strong> dismissed a husband\u2019s challenge against interim maintenance granted to his working wife. The Court upheld the Family Court\u2019s direction asking the husband to pay \u20b920,000 per month<\/strong> and further ordered him to clear all pending arrears within three months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband had moved the High Court stating that he was a qualified software engineer but had lost his employment due to company restructuring<\/strong>. He told the Court that his last working day was 08.09.2023 and that he was currently unemployed<\/strong>. According to him, he was managing his expenses through savings and support from his parents\u2019 pension<\/strong>. He therefore sought reduction of the interim maintenance<\/strong> amount<\/strong> from \u20b920,000 to nil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties had married on 04.07.2021 at Ulavi Channabasaveshwara Temple in Dharwad, Karnataka. Both were divorcees at the time of marriage. However, the marriage soon turned bitter. The husband alleged that the wife treated him mainly as a source of money<\/strong> and used threats of criminal complaints to obtain funds from him. He further claimed that in May 2022 she left the matrimonial home without any information<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Subsequently, the wife initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong> and sought \u20b970,000 per month. In defence, the husband informed the Court that the wife was highly educated <\/strong>and had been working in Bengaluru since January 2023 as an Administrative Support (SQA) at Elanco. Records showed that she was earning more than \u20b940,000 every month and had no dependents<\/strong>. He argued that compelling an unemployed husband to pay maintenance to an earning wife was unfair and legally unreasonable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife opposed the petition and alleged cruelty and intimidation during the marriage. She said no maintenance had been paid since May 2022. She also claimed the husband earlier worked as a highly paid software engineer earning around \u20b94,50,000 per month. She produced Tax Deduction Statements for 2022 to 2024<\/strong> showing taxable incomes of \u20b945,50,288 and \u20b966,29,532. She further alleged that he owned a 3BHK flat in Yelahanka<\/strong> and two properties in the United Kingdom.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After considering both sides, the court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha<\/em><\/strong> and observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “An able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and cannot evade his legal obligation by merely citing unemployment.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Regarding the wife\u2019s income, the Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Gainful employment is not an absolute bar to awarding maintenance.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further said that the real test is whether the wife\u2019s earnings are enough to maintain the standard of life enjoyed during marriage. The Court noted that since the husband had previously earned substantial income, the wife\u2019s salary of \u20b940,000 was-<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Comparatively modest and does not bridge the status gap.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that while the wife had originally claimed \u20b970,000 per month, the Family Court had already reduced it to \u20b920,000. It described the amount as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “A conservative and supportive maintenance amount intended to prevent destitution relative to the Petitioner’s status.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court finally held that there was no jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference, and that the order of the Family Court was just and reasonable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, the writ<\/strong> petition was dismissed<\/strong>, the \u20b920,000 monthly interim maintenance order remained in force, and the husband was directed to clear arrears within three months.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 227, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives High Court supervisory power over lower courts<\/td> Husband filed writ petition challenging Family Court maintenance order<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Provides maintenance to wife, children or parents if neglected<\/td> Wife filed maintenance case seeking \u20b970,000 monthly support<\/td><\/tr> Interim Maintenance<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Temporary support during pendency of case<\/td> Family Court granted wife \u20b920,000 per month pending final disposal<\/td><\/tr> Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance and income assessment<\/td> High Court relied on it to hold unemployment alone is no defence<\/td><\/tr> Family Court<\/a> Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td> Decides matrimonial and maintenance disputes<\/td> Original maintenance order was passed by Family Court, Bengaluru<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n