Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that where a husband was already paying Rs 1,03,382 per month to the wife without any Court order, he cannot subsequently claim before the Court that she is capable of earning or that he is unable to pay maintenance.

“In this case, the conduct of the petitioner/husband assumes significance from the fact that according to him, he is paying Rs.1,03,382/- to the wife without any Court order, and according to the wife, as there was a threat that he would not pay, she wanted an order from the Court, and the Court granted Rs.1,10,000/-. That has been questioned by filing the writ petition before the Court,” the Court said.

It added, “When the petitioner/husband himself is contributing to the wife an amount of Rs.1,03,382/-, it shows that she is not in a position to maintain herself and he has the capacity to pay the maintenance. Having paid the amount now he can not submit before this Court that she is capable of earning and he is not capable of paying.”

The case stemmed from the divorce proceedings filed by the petitioner-husband before the family court. During the proceedings, the wife moved an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.1,45,000 per month for her and her son, and Rs.1,00,000 towards litigation expenses. Following this, the family court granted Rs 1,10,000 per month as interim maintenance towards the wife and directed the husband to pay Rs 50,000 as one-time litigation expenses.

The husband challenged the order on the grounds that the wife is qualified, capable of earning and not entitled for maintenance, that he has already been paying Rs 1,03,382 per month to her, and that the wife sought maintenance for herself and the son, but a major son is not entitled for maintenance.

The High Court further questioned the husband, whose one of the grounds to challenge the family court order was that the major son was not entitled to maintenance.

“It is stated that the Court has recorded that the son is major but granted maintenance. The operative portion of the order clearly mentions that the maintenance is given to the wife, and when he is admittedly paying the amount, why he is aggrieved by such an order, this Court is not able to understand,” the Court observed.

Deprecating the misuse of the judicial proceedings to settle the ego of the parties, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed, “The judicial process is intended to resolve genuine legal grievances and not to provide a ground for settling the ego of the parties. Such use of judicial proceeding deserves to be depreciated, where the valuable time of the court is wasted. This is nothing but luxurious litigation.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 2 lakh payable to the wife. The Court further directed the family court to examine the statements of assets and liabilities of both parties and initiate appropriate legal proceedings under the guidelines of Rajnesh vs. Neha if any suppression of facts or false statements are identified.