Courts cannot straightaway award maintenance to wife when she earns more than husband: Karnataka High Court

The trial courts cannot straightaway award maintenance to a wife because she files a petition against the husband under various laws, especially when she earns more than her husband, observed the High Court of Karnataka.

“Only because a woman, more particularly a wife, files a petition invoking the provisions of Protection of Women from 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 recognised, the courts cannot straightaway pass an order awarding some amount towards maintenance payable by the husband,” said Justice Chillakur Sumalatha while setting aside an award passed by a trial court in favour of a woman.

Wife’s financial status

The High Court said that “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 Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final, the High Court made it clear.

Relative salaries

The High Court made these observations while allowing a petition filed by a husband who had challenged an award passed by a magistrate court in Mysuru under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance on his wife, who had sought interim maintenance of ₹1.13 lakh per month.

Justice Sumalatha pointed out that the trial court had noted only the earnings of husband as around ₹60,000 per month in awarding the maintenance without considering the salary of wife, who earns around ₹1.64 lakh per month.

Noticing that the couple, who had married in 2024, had stayed together only for two months, the High Court refused to accept the wife’s claim that she had to repay loan incurred for the marriage as she had not produced any documents on her borrowings.

However, the High Court made it clear that these observations were for deciding only the validity of the interim award and they would not have any bearing upon the final disposal of the case before the trial court.