Law Web: Karnataka HC: Financially Independent Wife Earning More Than Husband Can't Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Woman

Only because a woman more particularly a wife files

a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or

the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the

provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where

the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot

straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards

maintenance payable by the husband. When the wife is

financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is

more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are

found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts

should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on

the ground that women are required to be maintained by men

or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should

be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no

financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards

of her husband, then only Courts are required to award

maintenance either interim or final. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WP No. 2327 of 2026

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

SRI RAVI S @ JEEVAN S., Vs SMT. SAHANA DEVI A.,

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:30140

Heard Sri.Devaraj M., learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Sri.Somarjuna V.M., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to

quash the order that is passed by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mysuru, on I.A.No.I in

Crl.Misc.Case No.161/2025 dated 19.12.2025, this writ petition

is filed.

3. Respondent No.1, wife of the petitioner herein filed

an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking

following reliefs:

"A. In view of the above facts and

circumstances, the Applicant prays that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the

respondents from committing any act of

domestic violence against her, from contacting,

threatening, or disturbing her peace, to direct

the respondents to provide suitable residence

or rent for her accommodation, to direct

respondent No.1 to pay monthly maintenance

of ₹1,13,515/- for her sustenance, basis needs

and to clear the debt borrowed for marriage

along with compensation for the mental and

emotional agony suffered by her, and

B. Directing the respondent to pay litigation

charges of ₹50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand

only).

C. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble

Court deems fit in the interest of justice and

equity."

4. That application was filed not only against writ

petitioner/husband, but also against her father-in-law, motherin-

law, brothers-in-law, sister-in-law and also the husband of

the sister-in-law, who are arrayed as respondents No.2 to 7 to

this writ petition. She also moved an Interlocutory Application

i.e. I.A.No.I seeking the Court to direct her husband i.e.

petitioner herein to pay her a sum of ₹1,13,515/- per month

towards interim maintenance besides ₹50,000/- towards

litigation charges. The Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(III Court), Mysuru (hereinafter be referred to as 'Trial Court'

for the sake of convenience of discussion), on hearing both

sides disposed of I.A.No.I directing writ petitioner/husband to

pay respondent No.1/wife a sum of ₹20,000/- per month

towards interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the order thus

passed, the husband is before the Court.

5. Making his submission on the merits of the matter

learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the marriage

between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the

year 2024. Respondent No.1 lived with the petitioner only for

two months. As respondent No.1 was working and was getting

more income than that of the petitioner/husband, she was very

angry. She gave a false complaint to police and she failed to

attend the counseling. Also she filed a petition invoking the

provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

respondent No.1/wife earns more than ₹1,00,000/- per month.

As per TDS, her salary is ₹ 1,64,285. The couple did not beget

any children. Except maintaining herself, she has no other

liabilities or obligations. Petitioner/husband works in a private

limited company and his salary is around ₹57,000/-. Thus, the

salary of the respondent No.1/wife is many fold higher than that

of the petitioner/husband. Without considering these aspects,

the Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay respondent

No.1/wife a sum of ₹20,000/- towards interim maintenance.

Respondent No.1 is not entitled for any amount from the

petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be

quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

contended that respondent No.1 is the only child to her parents.

No doubt she is earning around ₹1,00,000/- per month, but she

is under obligation to clear all the debts which she incurred for

her marriage. Therefore, Trial Court rightly directed petitioner to

pay respondent No.1 a sum of ₹20,000/- towards interim

maintenance and thus this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the affidavit given disclosing assets and liabilities,

petitioner/husband made a mention that he is working in

Genpact India Private Limited and his salary is ₹57,309/- per

month. In the affidavit given, disclosing her assets and

liabilities, respondent No.1/wife made a mention that she is

working in a private company and her monthly income is

₹1,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 has not denied the genuineness

of the affidavit filed by petitioner/husband disclosing his assets

and liabilities where there is a mention that he is working in

Genpact India Private Limited and is drawing ₹57,309/- per

month. Petitioner produced his pay slip for the month of

October 2025 which goes to show that his gross salary for that

month is ₹63,346/- and the net pay is ₹60,009/-. The annual

tax statement received through TDS, which forms part of record

reveals that the salary of respondent No.1 during the months

April, May, June and July remained standard and the said

amount is ₹1,64,285/- and the tax deducted is around 15,000/-

per month. No material whatsoever is produced by respondent

No.1 which gives the details of the loans she obtained and the

EMI's. Even in the affidavit filed disclosing her assets and

liabilities she has not mentioned the details of those loans,

when she obtained and what amount is still due to be paid. Trial

Court made an observation at para 12 of the impugned order

that as per the bank statement and pay slip produced by

respondent No.1, it is evident that he is employed with Genpact

India Private Limited and is drawing gross monthly salary of

₹60,646/-. The Trial Court did not consider the income of

respondent No.1/wife at all. In her affidavit given disclosing

assets and liabilities she herself mentioned that she gets

₹1,00,000/- per month as salary. The Trial Court which

discussed about the earnings of petitioner/husband ought to

have discussed about the earnings of respondent No.1/wife and

thereafter should have come to a conclusion with regard to the

entitlement for interim maintenance. But, totally ignoring the

earnings of respondent No.1/wife, the impugned order came to

be passed.

9. Only because a woman more particularly a wife files