Financially Independent Wife Cannot Claim Maintenance Merely Because Husband Earns More: Karnataka High Court

The High Court further held that a well-educated and gainfully employed wife whose income was sufficient for her maintenance could not be treated as dependent merely because her husband earned more.

The Court was hearing the husband’s revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance. The Family Court had made the award despite finding that the wife earned ₹54,700 per month because the husband’s monthly income was higher.

A Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed: “Inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition to claim maintenance. Law does not state that a married woman under all circumstances should be maintained by her husband. When the wife is well educated, well placed and earns income which is sufficient to maintain herself, she cannot be termed to be dependent on her husband. Gainful employment, financial independence and self sufficiency are good grounds to reject the claim of maintenance of wife.”

Advocate T.R. Rajeshwari appeared for the husband. Advocate K. Vani appeared for the wife.

Background

The wife had sought ₹85,000 per month as maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS. She alleged that the husband had concealed his medical conditions before their marriage, demanded dowry and subjected her to ill-treatment.

The husband disputed her allegations and raised his own complaints concerning their matrimonial relationship. On the question of maintenance, he submitted that the wife held a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Computer Science, worked as a technical writer and earned ₹54,700 per month.

The husband submitted that he earned approximately ₹2 lakh per month. He contended, however, that he suffered from chronic diabetes, required insulin several times a day and incurred substantial expenditure on his treatment and the medical needs of his parents. He also referred to expenses arising from the proceedings initiated between the parties.

The Family Court examined the parties’ evidence and their affidavits concerning assets and liabilities, which had been furnished in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha (2021). It found that the wife was employed and earned ₹54,700 per month but awarded her ₹20,000 monthly because the husband’s income was higher.

The husband challenged that conclusion, contending that the wife’s own earnings were sufficient for a single person to maintain a decent standard of living and that she did not require financial support from him.

The High Court recorded that both spouses were well educated, had secured good placements and were earning. It framed the questions whether the wife could be regarded as dependent upon her husband, what amount she would receive if she were dependent and whether the Family Court’s order should be set aside.

Court’s Observations

Inability To Maintain Herself Was A Statutory Requirement

The Court examined Section 144(1) of the BNSS, which applies where a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain a wife who is unable to maintain herself. It held that the wife had to establish both neglect or refusal by the husband and her own inability to maintain herself.

The Court stated: “To claim maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023, one has to establish not only that the opposite party neglected or refused to maintain him/her, but also that the person who claims is unable to maintain himself/herself.”

It held that the husband’s financial position became relevant after these two requirements were established. His higher income did not dispense with the wife’s obligation to show that she was unable to maintain herself.

The Family Court had reasoned that the husband was bound to provide food, clothing and shelter to his wife and had relied on his average monthly income of ₹2 lakh being higher than her income. The High Court held that this reasoning did not overcome the statutory requirement concerning the wife’s inability to maintain herself.

Wife’s Own Disclosures Showed Financial Independence

The Court noted that the wife was a Computer Science graduate, worked as a technical writer and earned ₹54,700 monthly. Her own affidavit stated that her parents were dependent upon her and that she spent approximately ₹35,000 every month on them.

The Court observed: “When the wife herself contends that her parents are depending upon her and that she incurs a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month for their maintenance, this Court cannot appreciate her stand that she is depending upon her husband and thereby a direction is required to be issued to her husband to maintain her.”

It concluded that her ability to maintain dependent parents from her salary was inconsistent with her claim that she remained financially dependent upon her husband.

Higher Income Of Husband Did Not Justify Maintenance

The Court acknowledged that the husband’s income exceeded the wife’s earnings. It also considered the husband’s health condition, which was supported by the wife’s own version and the documents she had produced.

The Court clarified: “If the income of the wife is grossly low which is not sufficient to maintain herself, undoubtedly such wife is liable to be maintained by her husband. However, in the case on hand, through the amount she earns, as per her own version, she is maintaining her parents.”

It therefore held that the wife could not be considered dependent upon her husband. The Family Court’s conclusion that the husband was bound to pay maintenance merely because he earned more was consequently unsustainable.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Family Court’s maintenance order. The husband was therefore relieved of the direction to pay ₹20,000 per month.

Since the parties remained husband and wife, the Court sought to avoid a further rupture in their relationship and keep open the possibility of an amicable settlement. It consequently directed the husband not to initiate proceedings to recover any amount already paid to the wife as maintenance.

Cause Title: S.A.R. v. C.M.

Click here to read/download Order