He Could Maintain Second Wife & Children: Karnataka High Court Upholds Maintenance To First Wife & Family

The Court modified "exorbitant" maintenance awarded, citing lack of documentary proof while drawing adverse inference from husband’s lifestyle.

Update: 2026-05-01 11:30 GMT

The Karnataka High Court has observed that a husband’s ability to support a second family serves as a factual yardstick for his financial capacity to maintain his first wife, children, and aged mother. While the Court modified the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court, it strictly rejected the petitioner’s attempt to disown his youngest son, and his obligation to maintain his wife, and aged mother.

The Court held that if a man is actively maintaining a second wife and two children, it demonstrates he possesses sufficient income to fulfil his legal obligations toward his original family comprising, wife, three children and an aged mother. The Bench noted that the husband cannot plead destitution or a lack of resources to evade maintenance when his lifestyle and domestic commitments indicate otherwise.

Justice Geetha K.B. considering the detailed discussion, observed, “In the absence of any documentary proof to show the actual income of respondent, the Court has to verify the conduct of respondent and the conduct of petitioners to decide this fact. If really respondent is not having any job, he could not have maintained his second wife and two children from second wife. But admittedly he is maintaining his second wife and two children from second wife This shows that respondent is having sufficient income to maintain himself and also sufficient income to maintain the petitioners. However, the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court is exorbitant when there is no documentary proof…”.

Advocate M.C. Hukkeri appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Anand Ashtekar appeared for the respondent, while Advocate Pranav Umesh Badagi appeared as Court Guardian.

The petitioner (husband), who works in a photo studio and as a priest, challenged a maintenance order obtained by his wife, three children, and his 74-year-old mother. He alleged that his wife had deserted him 15 years ago and disputed the paternity of the fourth respondent, his youngest son. He further claimed an income of only ₹5,000–₹6,000 per month, while the respondents alleged he earned significantly more and had entered into a second marriage, neglecting his first family and his mother who was forced to work in a mess to survive.

The respondents initially moved the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹45,000 per month. On February 11, 2025, the Trial Court awarded a total of ₹30,000 per month.

Aggrieved by the order, the husband filed a review petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking to set aside the maintenance decree.

The Court drew an adverse inference against the husband for failing to produce his bank passbook despite admitting he held an account.

Regarding paternity, the Court applied the presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, noting the husband failed to prove "non-access". It further held that a husband’s remarriage constitutes a valid reason for a first wife to live separately and claim support. The Court held that the mother's meager income and old-age ailments did not absolve the son of his duty to maintain her.

The Bench noted, “…Admittedly, after filing the petition for maintenance, respondent has not paid even a penny for maintenance of petitioners No.2 and 3. Hence, he cannot escape his liability to maintain his minor children…”.

“…it is the responsibility of respondent to maintain petitioners No.1, 3 to 5 as on today and it was his responsibility to maintain petitioner No.2 till he attains maturity. …when the marriage is subsisting between petitioner No.1 and respondent and when the child is born out of that marriage the presumption is that it is the child of respondent… he has not produced any material to show that there is no access between him and petitioner No.1 at the time of conception of petitioner No.4 by petitioner No.1”, it further noted.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the revision petition by modifying the quantum of maintenance. It reduced the monthly allowance for the wife (R1) and mother (R5) to ₹5,000 each. The maintenance for the three children (R2, R3, and R4) was set at ₹2,500 each per month, payable from the date of the original petition until they reach the age of majority.