SHUBHRATH A.R. vs CHAITHRA M

- 1 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER , 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET. FAMILY COURT NO.231 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHUBHRATH A.R.,
S/O REVAPPA. A,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
RESIDENT NO. 24, 5TH CROSS,
BEHIND KAMAKYA THEATRE,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
KAMAKYA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 085
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CHAITHRA M.,
W/O SHUBHRATH A.R
D/O B.S. MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O SRI. HEMAGIRI MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA
6TH CROSS, NILAMBIKA MARG
KALYANA NAGARA
JYOTHI NAGARA POST
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K. VANI., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS
ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.07.2025 PASSED IN
CRL. MISC NO.172/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SEC.144 OF B.N.S.S., FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
25.09.2026
FOR ORDERS ON , COMING ON THIS DAY,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
This revision petition is the outcome of the order that
is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.172/2024 dated
04.07.2025.
2. As the relationship between the parties is not in
dispute, the revision petitioner will hereinafter be referred
to as 'husband' and the respondent as 'wife'.
3. Wife filed a petition invoking Section 144 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short
'BNSS'), seeking the Family Court to direct her husband to
pay her a sum of Rs.85,000/- per month towards her

- 3 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
maintenance. Family Court evaluating the evidence of
PW1, RW1, Exs.P1 to P59 and Exs.R1 to R24 came to a
conclusion that though wife is an employee and earns
Rs.54,700/- per month, as the income of the husband is
more than the income of the wife, she is liable to be
maintained by her husband. Exhibiting that opinion, Family
Court directed husband to pay wife a sum of Rs.20,000/-
per month towards her maintenance. Aggrieved by the
decision thus taken and the liability imposed, husband
filed this revision petition.
4. Heard Smt.T.R. Raja Rajeshwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Though Smt.K.Vani, is on record
representing the respondent, learned counsel has not
chosen to submit her contentions.
5. The version of the wife as per the material
available on record is that her husband suffers from Beta
Thaluassemia, there was Gall Bladder removal and he is
acute diabetic, but suppressing his health condition, he

- 4 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
married her. Her version is also that she was harassed by
her husband demanding dowry and that he ill-treated her.
6. On the other hand, husband contended that all
the marriage expenses were borne by him, but wife never
performed her duties and he had to attend all household
work and also the office work. Wife cultivated the habit of
watching mobile all the time and thereby she neglected
him. She never allowed him to visit his parents and
accused him for talking to his cousins. She always
exhibited psychotic and aggressive behaviour.
7. So far as the financial status of the parties is
concerned, wife contended that her husband works as
Engineer and earns Rs.40,00,000/- per annum. Husband
on the other hand took a plea that wife is a B.E. Graduate
in Computer Science and she works with Lion Bridge
Technologies Private Limited and she earns Rs.10,00,000/-
per annum.
8. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner/husband submitted that respondent/wife forced

- 5 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
petitioner/husband to leave his parents and live with her
parents at Chikkamagaluru. When petitioner/husband
refused to leave his aged parents, she started harassing
the petitioner/husband. Respondent/wife never took care
of the house and she never attended household chores.
Petitioner, apart from attending his duties, was cooking at
house and was doing all work. After the couple got
separated, respondent/wife started threatening the
petitioner/husband of filing false cases against him.
Respondent/wife gave complaint at Family Counselling
Centre, Chikkamagaluru, threatened the
petitioner/husband and his parents and that she will give
complaint to police and get the case registered and
thereby took an undertaking for mutual consent divorce
and also in respect of permanent alimony. Petitioner, who
suffers from chronic Type-1 diabetes, takes insulin four
times a day. No doubt, petitioner earns Rs.2,00,000/- per
month, however, out of the said amount, he spent
Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses of himself and his
parents. That apart, since the respondent/wife foisted

- 6 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
several cases against him, he is spending huge amount on
legal expenses. On the other hand, respondent/wife as per
her own version earns Rs.54,700/- per month. That
amount is more than sufficient for a single person for
decent living. But without considering these aspects, only
because a petition is filed claiming maintenance by the
wife, Family Court directed petitioner/husband to pay
respondent/wife huge sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. As
respondent/wife does not require any financial support
from the petitioner/husband and further as petitioner/
husband is liable to maintain his parents and has to spend
huge amount for his treatment, the impugned order is
required to be set aside.
9. For the benefit of discussion and appreciation of
legal position involved, Section 144(1) of BNSS, 2023 is
extracted as under.
Section 144: Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents:
(1) If any person having sufficient means
neglects or refuses to maintain-

- 7 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate child, whether
married or not, unable to maintain itself; or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a
married daughter) who has attained majority,
where such child is, by reason of any physical or
mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain
itself; or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself
or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may,
upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such
person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or
mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate
thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as
the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the
father of a female child referred to in clause (b) to
make such allowance, until she attains her
majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the
husband of such female child, if married, is not
possessed of sufficient means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may,
during the pendency of the proceeding regarding
monthly allowance for the maintenance under this
sub-section, order such person to make a monthly

- 8 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or
such child, father or mother, and the expenses of
such proceeding which the Magistrate considers
reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as
the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the
monthly allowance for the interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding under the second
proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of
within sixty days from the date of the service of
notice of the application to such person.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this Chapter,
"wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by,
or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has
not remarried."
10. While the version of the wife is that she is liable
to be maintained by her husband and thereby she sought
for a direction to the husband to pay her a sum of
Rs.85,000/- per month towards her maintenance, the plea
taken by the husband is that the wife being well educated,
placed in a decent job and earning handsome salary, is not
expected to claim maintenance from him and thereby he is
not liable to maintain her. The financial status of both

- 9 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
parties as projected by themselves in the affidavits given
in respect of their assets and liabilities by following the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha
and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 is as under:
HUSBAND
:
Educational qualification B.E.
General Monthly Expenses Rs.70,000/-
Dependent family members Nil
Name of the Employer Sonim
Technologies
India Pvt. Ltd.,
Bengaluru
Designation Senior
Technical
Leader
Monthly income Rs.2,00,000/-
Income from other sources Rs.70,000/-
WIFE
:
Educational qualification B.E.(Computer
Science)
Monthly Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Dependent family members Father and
mother
Approximate monthly
expenditure incurred
towards the dependents
Rs.35,000/-
Particulars of employer Lion Bridge
Designation Technical
Writer
Monthly income Rs.54,700/-

- 10 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
DETAILS OF LOANS BORROWED OR ADVANCED:
(a) Marriage loan : Rs.40 lakhs.
(b) Housing loan : Rs.30 lakhs
Details of loan installments - Nil
Amount repaid out of the total marriage loan,
Rs.10,00,000/-.
11. With the aforementioned particulars coupled
with the evidence produced by both sides, the points that
emerge for consideration are:
(1) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, wife can be
termed to be the dependent of her husband
and if so, to what amount she is entitled to
towards maintenance?
(2) Whether basing on the evidence
produced and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside?

- 11 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
DISCUSSION ON POINTS No. 1 and 2:
12. Here is the case where husband and wife are
well educated, secured good placements and are earning.
Even as per the version of the wife, husband suffers with
Beta Thaluassemia and that he is acute diabetic.
13. 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. Thus, the following two aspects should
invariably established by the wife to claim maintenance
from her husband.
(i) That the husband neglected or refused to
maintain her and
(ii) That she is unable to maintain herself.
14. On establishing these two aspects, the aspect of
the economic position of the husband arises and then the
Court has to look into whether the husband has sufficient
means to maintain his wife.

- 12 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
15. In the case on hand, wife as per her own
version is a B.E. Graduate in Computer Science, works
with an Organization by name Lion Bridge as Technical
Writer and earns Rs.54,700/- per month. Wife made a
clear mention that the approximate monthly expenditure
she incurs towards her dependents is Rs.35,000/-. 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.
16. No doubt the financial status of the husband is
higher than that of his wife. However, his health condition,
even as per the version of the wife and the document she
produced before the Court, reveals justification in his
version that he is required to spend huge amount for his
treatment.

- 13 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
17. Family Court at para 16 of the order made an
observation that the respondent (petitioner herein) being
the husband of petitioner (respondent herein), it is his
bounded duty to provide food, clothing and shelter to the
petitioner (respondent herein). At para 20 of the
impugned order Family Court observed that the
respondent (petitioner herein) is having average income of
Rs.2,00,000/- per month, which is more than the income
of the petitioner (respondent herein).
18. 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.

- 14 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
19. No doubt as earlier discussed, the income of the
husband is more than that of his wife. 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. Therefore, she cannot be
considered to be the dependent of her husband. Thus, the
impugned order through which liability is imposed upon
the husband to pay maintenance to his wife, is required to
be set aside.
20. Therefore, following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in
Crl.Misc.No.172/2024 dated 04.07.2025 is set aside.

- 15 -
RPFC No. 231 of 2025
(iii) Parties to the litigation are husband and wife.
Hence, with an intention to avoid further
rupture of relationship and to keep the doors of
amicable settlement open, this Court orders
husband not to initiate any proceedings for
recovery of amount, if any paid till now to the
wife towards maintenance.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM