The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a family court order granting Rs 20,000 to an estranged wife, saying that gainful employment, financial independence and self sufficiency are good grounds to reject the claim of maintenance of the wife.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha in its order said “When the wife is well educated, well placed and earns income which is sufficient to maintain herself, she cannot be termed to be dependent on her husband.”
The husband had approached the court challenging the family court order dated July 4, 2025, wherein the court had allowed the application filed by the wife seeking monthly maintenance from her husband under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The family court had noted that though the wife is an employee and earns Rs.54,700 per month, as the income of the husband is more than the income of the wife, she is liable to be maintained by her husband.
The husband, a software engineer in his plea argued that the wife is a B.E. Graduate in Computer Science and she works with a private company and she earns Rs.10,00,000, per annum.
Further, he suffers from chronic Type-1 diabetes, and takes insulin four times a day. Even though he earns Rs.2,00,000 per month, however, out of the said amount, he spends Rs.70,000, towards medical expenses of himself and his parents and also paying legal fees to defend himself in the cases registered by the wife against him.
The wife contended that the medical condition of the husband was not disclosed to her before marriage. Further, it was alleged that she was harassed by her husband demanding dowry and that he ill-treated her.
The court noted that husband and wife are well educated, secured good placements and are earning. Even as per the version of the wife, the husband suffers with Beta Thaluassemia and that he is acute diabetic.
Stating that to claim maintenance under Section 144 of BNSS, one has to establish not only that the opposite party neglected or refused to maintain him/her, but also that the person who claims is unable to maintain himself/herself.
Following which the aspect of the economic position of the husband arises and then the court has to look into whether the husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife.
The court said “When the wife herself contends that her parents are depending upon her and that she incurs a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month for their maintenance, this Court cannot appreciate her stand that she is depending upon her husband and thereby a direction is required to be issued to her husband to maintain her.”
Noting that inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition to claim maintenance. Law does not state that a married woman under all circumstances should be maintained by her husband.
The court allowed the petition filed by the husband and held “No doubt as earlier discussed, the income of the husband is more than that of his wife. However, in the case on hand, through the amount she earns, as per her own version, she is maintaining her parents. Therefore, she cannot be considered to be the dependent of her husband. Thus, the impugned order through which liability is imposed upon the husband to pay maintenance to his wife, is required to be set aside.”
Advocate T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE for Petitioner.
Advocate K. VANI for Respondent.