Employment of wife does not bar interim maintenance where income is insufficient to maintain matrimonial status.

The Petitioner (husband) and Respondent (wife) married in July 2021; both were divorcees.

The Respondent left the matrimonial home in May 2022 and subsequently filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking Rs. 70,000 per month.

By an order dated 04.08.2025, the IV Addl. Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month.

The Petitioner challenged this order via a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending he is currently unemployed due to organizational restructuring and that the Respondent earns over Rs. 40,000 per month as an administrative professional.

The Respondent submitted evidence (TDS records) showing the Petitioner’s past annual income exceeded Rs. 66 lakhs and that he owns multiple properties.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing maintenance as articulated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.

This precedent establishes that an able-bodied husband is presumed to have the capacity to earn and cannot shirk his legal obligation to support his spouse by citing unemployment.

Furthermore, the law stipulates that the mere fact that a wife is gainfully employed does not automatically disentitle her from receiving maintenance; the court must ensure the maintenance allows her to live a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner claimed unemployment, his TDS records for 2022-2024 revealed a substantial earning history (Rs. 45.5 lakhs and Rs. 66.2 lakhs respectively), indicating a high earning capacity as a software engineer.

Applying the Rajnesh v. Neha standard, the Court held that the Petitioner's professional qualifications signify a continued capacity to meet matrimonial obligations despite his claim of current job loss.

Regarding the Respondent’s income, the Court noted that her salary of Rs. 40,000 is "modest" compared to the Petitioner’s documented high-income status during the marriage.

The Court reasoned that the Family Court’s reduction of the claim from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 20,000 was a conservative approach intended to prevent destitution and bridge the "status gap" between the parties.

Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the lower court's exercise of discretion.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the Family Court’s order dated 04.08.2025.

The Petitioner was further directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months from the date of the order.