Wife Who Left Matrimonial Home During Covid To Care For Parents & Never Came Back Not Entitled To Maintenance: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a revision plea filed by a wife seeking maintenance, holding that she failed to establish reasonable cause for leaving the matrimonial home, particularly when she left to care for COVID-affected parents and subsequently refused to return despite her husband's requests.

The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chilakur Sumalatha noted as below in the order:

“…As per the contents of Ex.R1 - Complaint, petitioner went to her maternal home to take care of her parents and sister as they contacted COVID and her father suffered with heart attack. Thus, it cannot be held that due to the attitude of respondent, petitioner left matrimonial home and went to her maternal home…Also, undisputedly, as per the contents of Ex.R3 statement given by wife to police, her husband approached her parents house asking her to return to matrimonial home”, the court noted at the outset, iterating the findings of the family court.

The court highlighted that the grant of maintenance is not automatic and the wife seeking maintenance should meet certain specific criteria for the same.

“….A wife is entitled to get an order of maintenance against her husband only if she meets required criteria prominent of which are:

(i) That her husband neglected or refused to maintain her;(ii) That she is unable to maintain herself; and(iii) That her husband has got sufficient means to maintain her…”, the court pointed out.

“…Leaving matrimonial home without justification and reasonable cause is certainly a disqualification to seek maintenance from husband…In the case on hand, neither refusal nor neglect are found. Petitioner failed to establish that there exists reasonable cause due to which she withdrew from the society of the respondent. Petitioner failed to establish that there exists reasonable cause due to which she withdrew from the society of the respondent”, the court underscored further.

The petitioner-wife, along with her two daughters, had filed a petition, seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband before the Mysuru Family Court. While the Family Court rejected the claims in respect of wife and elder daughter, the court allowed it in terms of younger daughter at the rate of Rs 8000/month till marriage or gainful employment.

Respondent-husband was also directed to bear entire educational expenses of younger daughter till completion of education as per the order from November 2023.

However, aggrieved by the rejection of her claim, the wife preferred the current revisional plea before the High Court.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent in the current case was solemnized in 1995, and they were admittedly together for more than 25 years without any major disturbance.

According to the Husband, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, the wife left the matrimonial home to care for her parents and sister who had contracted COVID. Around the same time, her father had also suffered a heart attack. After the lapse of some time, despite repeated requests, the wife did not return to the matrimonial home, the husband submitted before the court.

According to the husband, when he went to her parents' house to bring her back, she lodged a police complaint. Since she left voluntarily to take care of her ailing parents and never returned, there is no 'reasonable cause' so as to grant maintenance, it was submitted.

The court was also told by the respondent husband that he had purchased a house site in the petitioner-wife's name by obtaining a loan, and that he had borne the educational expenses of both the daughters.

On the other hand, the wife argued that she was subjected to cruelty by the husband and it was the circumstances in her matrimonial home that forced her to leave.

However, the court emphasised that the allegations made by the wife was without substance.

“…So far as the allegation of the petitioner that she was harassed and she was subjected to cruelty by respondent/husband, no substantive proof was produced to that effect before the Family Court…. Having discussed all these facts, Family Court came to a conclusion that petitioner/wife is not entitled for any maintenance from her husband... This Court therefore, does not find any grounds to interfere with and to set aside the findings given”, the court concluded.

Case Title: X v. Z

Case No: RPFC No.133/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

Click Here To Read/Download Order