Daijiworld Media Network – Bengaluru
Bengaluru, Jul 1: The Karnataka high court (HC) has ruled that courts cannot automatically grant maintenance to a wife merely because she invokes provisions under the Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, or the Code of Criminal Procedure, stressing that financial capacity must be assessed before awarding such relief.
The court observed that maintenance cannot be presumed as a right and must be granted only after examining whether the wife has sufficient independent financial resources to sustain herself in accordance with the standard of living of her husband.
Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations while allowing petitions filed by a 37-year-old man from Gonikoppa in Kodagu district, who challenged a December 19, 2025 order of a Mysuru trial court directing him to pay Rs 20,000 per month as interim maintenance in a domestic violence case.
The high court set aside the order, holding that it was legally unsustainable.
“In the case on hand, the income of the wife is more than that of the husband. With her admitted income of Rs 1 lac per month, she can maintain herself. Therefore, there is no requirement for the trial court to order the husband to pay a sum of Rs 20,000 per month out of his earnings of Rs 60,646 per month. Hence, this court is of the view that the order under challenge is unsustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the order of the trial court is set aside,” the court said.
The judge observed that courts should not be inclined to grant maintenance on the presumption that a wife must be maintained by her husband, particularly where she is financially independent and has no dependent responsibilities such as children.
It further held that maintenance, whether interim or final, should be awarded only when it is established that the wife has no independent financial means to maintain herself consistent with the husband’s standard of living.
The petitioner had contended that the couple married in 2024 and lived together for only two months before disputes arose, following which the wife filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
He argued that his wife earns more than Rs 1 lac per month and, according to TDS records, her salary is Rs 1.64 lac per month, while he earns Rs 57,000 per month working in a private firm.
The wife’s counsel, however, submitted that although she earns around Rs 1 lac per month, she is burdened with loans incurred during the marriage, which formed the basis of her claim for Rs 1,13,515 per month towards sustenance and Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.
The High Court noted that while the wife admitted her higher income, she failed to provide details of the alleged loans, including when they were taken and the outstanding amounts or EMIs being paid.
“The court ought to have discussed the wife’s self-admitted higher income while passing the impugned order,” Justice Sumalatha observed.
Analysing the affidavits of income, assets and liabilities submitted by both parties, the court held that the trial court had failed to consider the wife’s financial capacity before directing payment of Rs 20,000 as interim maintenance.
Holding that the wife, with an income of Rs 1 lac per month, was capable of maintaining herself, the high court concluded that the trial court order was unsustainable and accordingly set it aside.