Karnataka HC Sets Aside Wife’s ₹20,000 Monthly Maintenance, Citing Her ₹54,700 Salary And Support For Parents

In brief

The question

Whether the wife, in the circumstances of the case, was dependent on her husband and entitled to maintenance, and, if so, in what amount

The court held

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Family Court’s order directing the husband to pay Rs.20,000 per month in maintenance.

It also directed

To preserve the possibility of amicable settlement, it directed the husband not to seek recovery of any maintenance amount already paid to the wife.

01Facts

The wife applied under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking maintenance of Rs.85,000 per month.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3

The Family Court partly allowed her application and ordered the husband to pay Rs.20,000 per month, noting that he earned more than she did.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3

The husband challenged that order in a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.

p. 2

The wife was a B.E. graduate employed as a technical writer, earning Rs.54,700 per month; she stated that she spent approximately Rs.35,000 per month on her parents’ maintenance. The husband disclosed a monthly income of Rs.2,00,000 and relied on his medical condition and treatment expenses.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 10, 15–16

02Issues

i.Whether the wife, in the circumstances of the case, was dependent on her husband and entitled to maintenance, and, if so, in what amount

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 11

ii.Whether the Family Court’s maintenance order should be set aside in light of the evidence and circumstances

p. 11 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Section 144(1) BNSS permits a maintenance order where a person with sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain a wife who is unable to maintain herself.

pp. 6–8 · ¶ 9

The Court stated that a claimant must establish both neglect or refusal to maintain and inability to maintain herself; only then does the inquiry proceed to the other spouse’s means.

pp. 11–12 · ¶ 13–14

The Court also referred to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, in connection with the parties’ affidavits of assets and liabilities.

p. 9 · ¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144

04Reasoning

The Court treated the wife’s inability to maintain herself as a threshold requirement.

pp. 12–14 · ¶ 15, 18–19

She was educated, employed and earning Rs.54,700 per month, and her own affidavit stated that she used part of her income to support her parents. On those facts, the Court concluded that she had not shown that she was dependent on her husband or unable to maintain herself.

pp. 12–14 · ¶ 15, 18–19

Although the husband earned more, the Court also noted his health conditions and treatment expenses; it held that the income disparity did not overcome the wife’s failure to establish the statutory threshold.

pp. 12–14 · ¶ 16, 19