₹20,000 Maintenance To Wife & Child Not Excessive For Man Maintaining Mercedes Car: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's challenge to an interim maintenance order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and child, observing that a person who can maintain a Mercedes Benz car cannot claim that such an amount is excessive. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252]

A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice T.M. Nadaf rejected the husband's contention that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was unreasonable.

“...For a person who could maintain Mercedes Benz Car, to pay Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be termed as excessive and since the matter is pending consideration, we without expressing anything on the interim maintenance granted, as respondent wife is not in appeal seeking enhancement of the same, dismiss the Writ Petition, confirming the order, directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month to the respondent-wife and child without fail,” the Court observed.

The Bench noted that, during his cross-examination before the Family Court in the matrimonial proceedings, the husband had admitted that he maintained a Mercedes Benz car, although he claimed that he was paying instalments towards it.

The Court further clarified that the wife would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings to recover the amount in the event of default by the husband.

The writ petition challenging the maintenance order was heard along with the husband's appeal against the dismissal of his divorce petition filed under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Before the Family Court, the husband had alleged that his wife led an irresponsible life, repeatedly left the matrimonial home and subjected him to cruelty. The wife, however, denied the allegations and contended that it was the husband who had physically and mentally harassed her.

She further alleged that the husband was involved in an extra-marital relationship and had fathered a child from that relationship.

While examining the Family Court's findings, the High Court noted that photographs produced by the wife showed the husband celebrating the birthday of the child and participating in family functions with the other woman. The Family Court had also observed that, although the husband initially admitted that the woman in the photographs was his friend, he later denied even identifying her.

The Family Court had further recorded that the photographs were not fabricated by the wife but had been uploaded on social media accounts associated with the woman and the child. It also took note of the fact that the husband's father had gifted property to the couple's son and had appointed the wife as its administrator.

Senior Advocate I. Tharanath Poojary, appearing for the husband, argued that the parties had been living separately for nine years and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. He urged the Court to dissolve the marriage on that basis.

Rejecting the submission, the Division Bench held that the wife had reasonable cause to live separately in light of the husband's relationship with another woman.

“...We find it very hard to accept the contention... that separation between the parties continued for a sufficient length of time should be considered as breaking down of the marriage beyond repair. On the contrary, the facts and circumstances of the present case indicate otherwise. There is reasonable cause for the respondent-wife to live apart. Any exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court would amount to rewarding premium to the wrongdoer, besides amounting to applying salt to the injury...,” the Court observed.

The Bench also endorsed the Family Court's conclusion that the husband had failed to establish cruelty.

“...The petitioner-husband with only two documents, that is, the marriage invitation card and photograph, has miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against the wife,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both the appeal challenging the rejection of the divorce petition and the writ petition assailing the maintenance order. It also directed the Family Court to dispose of the pending maintenance proceedings expeditiously.

Adv. Ramakrishnaiah. C appeared for the respondent wife before the High Court.

Case Title: M v. N

Case No: MFA No. 5567/2024 (FC) c/w WP No. 21524/2024 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

Click Here To Read/Download Order