Maintenance Can Be Granted Only When Wife Cannot Maintain Herself to Husband's Standard: Karnataka High Court
The Court set aside an order directing husband earning Rs 60,000 per month to pay Rs 20,000 interim maintenance to wife earning Rs 1,00,000 per month.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that courts cannot automatically pass an order awarding maintenance merely because a wife files a petition invoking provisions under different laws, and that when the wife is financially sound, earns more than the husband and has no additional liabilities such as looking after children, courts should not grant maintenance on the ground that wives must be maintained by their husbands.
The Court said that maintenance, whether interim or final, is warranted only when it is demonstrated that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standard of her husband's lifestyle. Where the wife's income itself exceeds that of the husband and she has no other dependants or liabilities, the foundational premise for awarding maintenance is absent.
Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed, “Only because a woman more particularly a wife files a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards maintenance payable by the husband…”.
“…When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Devaraj M appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Somarjuna V.M. appeared for the respondent.
The parties married in 2024 and lived together for only two months before the wife filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,13,515, alternate accommodation and compensation. She also filed an interlocutory application for interim maintenance.
The Trial Court, by order dated December 19, 2025, directed the husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as interim maintenance. The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
On facts, the Court found that the husband was employed with Genpact India Private Limited earning a gross salary of Rs. 60,646 per month while the wife, in her own affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities, admitted to earning Rs. 1,00,000 per month, with TDS records showing monthly income of Rs. 1,64,285.
The wife had produced no material disclosing details of alleged loans or EMIs she claimed to be servicing. The Trial Court, the High Court noted, had discussed the husband's earnings in detail but had completely ignored the wife's admitted income while passing the maintenance order, an omission that rendered the order unsustainable.
The High Court set aside the impugned order, clarifying that its observations on merits would have no bearing on the final disposal of the case or on any fresh interim applications by the wife based on change of circumstances.
Cause Title: R. v. S and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:30140)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Devaraj M, Advocate.
Respondents: Somarjuna V.M., Advocate.