'Jobless' Husband, Wife Earning 'Handsome Salary': Karnataka HC Refuses To Enhance Maintenance, Rejects Cross-Pleas In DV Case

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to enhance the maintenance amount awarded to a wife in her plea under the Domestic Violence Act, noting that the husband claimed that he was 'jobless' and the wife is getting a handsome salary.

A bench of Justice V Srishananda, however, also denied relief to the husband who sought the setting aside of the 2015 order of the Family Court directing him to pay Rs. 9K to the wife. With this, the bench dismissed the criminal revision petitions filed by both parties challenging the common judgment.

Briefly put, the parties got married in April 2009 and it is the claim of the wife that there was repeated demand for additional dowry from her husband and she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment.

In June 2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, partly allowed her plea under Section 12 of the DV Act and restrained the husband from committing any act of domestic violence.

The husband was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 per month towards rent, Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance and a sum of Rs 40,000 as compensation. This order was later confirmed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in August 2016.

Before the HC, the husband, in his plea, contended that earlier he ran a school, which he had closed, and that as of now, he is jobless. Therefore, he is unable to pay any maintenance.

It was also argued that since the wife is earning more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs per month, his revision petition be allowed and the revision petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance amount must be dismissed.

The wife, on the other hand, argued that her husband has a share in his ancestral properties and even has properties in his name, but is suppressing those material facts before the Court. She also argued that her earnings won't bar her from seeking maintenance.

Considering the arguments of both parties, the High Court took a balanced yet firm view as it noted that the husband's exact share in the ancestral property was yet to be finalised and the same could not serve as a ground for enhancing maintenance for the wife.

The court also pointed out that the wife's financial statements made it clear that she could spend a significant amount on legal expenses.

However, the High Court also noted that the husband possesses 1 acre of land, which he had mortgaged twice: Rs 3,50,000 in 2019 and another Rs 1,00,000 from DCC Bank in 2021.

The Court observed that if he could borrow money by mortgaging the property and did not pay the maintenance amount, his conduct could be inferred to mean that he is "not willing to pay the maintenance amount".

In view of these observations, the High Court concluded that since the wife is an earning member and the husband claims to be jobless and there are no issues in the marriage, therefore, there is absolutely no scope for further enhancement of the maintenance amount.

Thus, finding no substance in both revision petitions, the court dismissed the same and denied relief to both the parties.