Karnataka HC Upholds ₹12,000 Monthly Maintenance For Wife And Daughter After Husband Failed To File Financial Disclosure Despite Repeated Chances

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court’s decision to proceed against the husband’s defence, after he failed to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities or cross-examine the wife despite repeated opportunities, warranted setting aside the maintenance order and remanding the matter.

The court held

The High Court held that the husband had shown no ground to set aside or remit the Family Court’s order.

It also directed

It dismissed the revision petition, leaving in place the award of ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹4,000 per month to the daughter, subject to the Family Court’s direction concerning the earlier maintenance proceeding.

01Facts

The wife and minor daughter sought maintenance of ₹25,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

p. 2

The Family Court awarded the wife ₹8,000 and the daughter ₹4,000 per month

p. 2

In revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the husband argued that his defence had been struck out and he was not allowed to lead evidence, and that a separate domestic-violence order requiring him to pay the wife ₹6,000 per month made the combined maintenance burden excessive

pp. 3–4

The record showed that, despite repeated opportunities, he did not file the required affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities or cross-examine the wife

pp. 4–5

The Family Court had also directed that the wife and daughter not press their maintenance claim in the earlier proceeding

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court’s decision to proceed against the husband’s defence, after he failed to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities or cross-examine the wife despite repeated opportunities, warranted setting aside the maintenance order and remanding the matter.

pp. 4–5, 7

ii.2. Whether the maintenance ordered in this proceeding improperly duplicated the maintenance payable under the earlier domestic-violence proceeding.

pp. 3–4, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance to eligible wives and children.

In assessing maintenance, the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, require parties to disclose their assets and liabilities by affidavit.

p. 5

Where maintenance has been claimed in more than one proceeding, the court must account for the other proceeding to avoid divergent or duplicative maintenance orders.

pp. 5–6

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

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125

04Reasoning

The High Court found no basis to grant a remand.

The Family Court had repeatedly directed the husband to file his disclosure affidavit and had granted several adjournments; he nevertheless failed to comply and also did not cross-examine the wife.

pp. 4–5

He offered no reasonable explanation for that failure, so the consequences of his own inaction did not justify setting aside the order.

p. 7

As to the alleged overlap, the Family Court had directed the claimants not to press their maintenance claim in the earlier proceeding, addressing the concern that the two orders would result in duplicative maintenance.

pp. 5–6