Karnataka HC Restores ₹3,000 Interim Maintenance To Wife Citing Alleged Harassment, Says Not Rejoining Husband Alone Was No Bar

The wife sought maintenance of ₹15,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC and interim maintenance pending the main petition.

The Trial Court awarded her interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month, but the Sessions Court set that order aside, relying on the husband’s efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home.

The wife challenged the Sessions Court’s order under Section 482 CrPC. She alleged that physical and mental harassment had compelled her to leave the matrimonial home; the respondent was not represented before the High Court.

The High Court considered the parties’ circumstances and the orders below.

Section 125(1) CrPC provides the basis for a claim for maintenance, including interim maintenance.

The Court relied on Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato, 2025 INSC 55, para 29, for the principle that a wife’s failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not, by itself, defeat her maintenance claim or establish the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC.

Whether she has sufficient reason to live separately depends on the facts and evidence of the individual case.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in reviewing the challenged order.

The Court found that the wife had specifically alleged physical and mental harassment and deprivation of basic necessities, and that these allegations provided reasons for living separately.

The Sessions Court’s reliance on the husband’s efforts to bring her back did not, by itself, answer those allegations or justify denying interim maintenance.

The Court also noted that the wife was economically vulnerable and unable to maintain herself, while the Trial Court had awarded only ₹3,000 per month after considering the parties’ financial circumstances.

It therefore held that the Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the Trial Court’s order.