Karnataka HC Cuts Husband’s Maintenance To Wife And Son From Rs 17,500 To Rs 12,500 A Month, As His Income And Assets Were Unproved

The wife and minor son sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging that the husband had neglected them and had the means to support them.

The husband disputed the wife’s entitlement, asserting that she was educated and employed, and claimed that he earned his living as a coolie and faced financial liabilities.

The Family Court directed him to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹7,500 per month to the son.

He challenged the quantum in revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

The High Court found that the wife’s employment and the husband’s claimed income and property were not established, but held that his liability to maintain his minor son remained.

The Court considered Section 125 Cr.P.C., under which a person with sufficient means may be directed to provide maintenance to a wife or minor child unable to maintain themselves.

It also exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

The Court applied the principle that a biological father’s liability to maintain his minor child is not defeated by his subsequent marriage or the birth of another child; it identified no precedent by name.

The Court found that the respondents had not established the husband’s asserted business income or substantial property, while the husband had likewise failed to prove that the wife was employed and able to maintain herself.

The husband’s subsequent marriage and child did not excuse his obligation to support the minor son.

However, given the insufficient evidence of his financial status, the Court considered the original awards too high and reduced them.

The Family Court’s order was modified to require the husband to pay ₹7,500 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to the minor son.

The remaining directions in the Family Court’s order were left in force.