01Facts
The wife sought interim maintenance under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act in proceedings before the Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking ₹60,000 per month for herself and her daughter.
pp. 2–7The Family Court rejected her personal maintenance claim but directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month for the child.
pp. 2–7The wife challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking enhancement.
pp. 2–7She stated that she earned ₹15,000 per month and paid ₹9,500 in rent, while the husband earned about ₹1,30,000 gross per month.
pp. 2–7His May 2024 payslip showed take-home pay of ₹61,842 after deductions, including loan repayments.
pp. 2–7The wife’s assets-and-liabilities affidavit did not identify her employer or state her income, but recorded that the husband had paid the child’s school fees through the 2024–25 academic year.
pp. 2–702Issues
i.1. Whether the Family Court’s direction for the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month for the child’s maintenance warranted modification
pp. 3–5, 7ii.2. Whether the husband should additionally be directed to pay the child’s school fees
p. 703Law Applied
The Court considered Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, under which the wife had sought maintenance, and exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
pp. 2, 6–7It applied the principle that a person’s obligation to maintain dependants is not displaced by voluntarily incurred loan instalments; financial commitments such as housing or vehicle loans do not absolve that obligation.
pp. 2, 6–7No judicial precedents were cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Divorce Act, 1869 Section 36
04Reasoning
The Court considered the husband’s gross salary and substantial deductions, but held that his loan repayments did not excuse his responsibility towards his dependants.
pp. 5–7It also noted that the wife had not disclosed her employer or income in her affidavit, while the affidavit recorded the husband’s prior payment of the child’s school fees.
p. 7In light of those circumstances, the Court found that the existing monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 could meet the child’s other expenses, including food, clothing, transport and extracurricular activities, if the husband also paid the school fees.
p. 705Holding
The petition was disposed of by modifying the Family Court’s order.
pp. 7–8The husband was directed to pay the child’s entire school fees in addition to ₹20,000 per month for the child’s maintenance until disposal of the suit.
pp. 7–8Original Court PDF
MRS PRATHIMA N JvsMR ROOBEL SUDHAKAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
