Wife with higher income than husband is not entitled to interim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a wife is entitled to interim maintenance under the PWDA when her admitted monthly income is significantly higher than that of her husband

The court held

The High Court held that the Trial Court's order was unsustainable in law, answering that a wife earning more than her husband, without further liabilities, is not entitled to maintenance.

It also directed

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the JMFC (III Court), Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.Case No.161/2025 was set aside.

01Facts

The petitioner (husband) and Respondent No. 1 (wife) married in 2024 and lived together for two months

p. 5

The wife filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDA), 2005, seeking maintenance of ₹1,13,515 per month and litigation charges.

pp. 3-4

The Trial Court (JMFC III, Mysuru) directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance via I.A. No. I.

p. 5

The husband challenged this order via a writ of certiorari, contending that the wife earns significantly more than him: her monthly income is approximately ₹1,00,000 (with TDS records showing up to ₹1,64,285), while his net monthly salary is approximately ₹60,009.

pp. 6-7

02Issues

i.1. Whether a wife is entitled to interim maintenance under the PWDA when her admitted monthly income is significantly higher than that of her husband

pp. 8-9

ii.2. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by awarding maintenance while ignoring the financial standing and assets/liabilities disclosure of the wife

pp. 8-9

03Law Applied

The Court applied the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDA), 2005, specifically Section 23 regarding interim orders.

p. 3

The Court relied on the principle that maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and ensure the wife can maintain a standard of living similar to the husband’s; the right to maintenance is contingent upon the claimant’s inability to maintain herself.

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 23

04Reasoning

The Court observed that in her own affidavit of assets and liabilities, the wife admitted to earning ₹1,00,000 per month, while TDS records indicated a gross salary of ₹1,64,285, whereas the husband's gross salary was established at ₹63,346 with a net pay of ₹60,009.

pp. 7-8

The Court reasoned that maintenance should only be awarded when the wife lacks the financial resources to sustain herself according to the husband's standards; since the wife was financially "sound," earned more than the husband, and had no additional liabilities such as children, the fundamental prerequisite for awarding maintenance was not met.

p. 9

05Holding

The High Court held that the Trial Court's order was unsustainable in law, answering that a wife earning more than her husband, without further liabilities, is not entitled to maintenance.

p. 9

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the JMFC (III Court), Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.Case No.161/2025 was set aside.

p. 10

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF