The Karnataka High Court rejected a wife's case to enhance the maintenance awarded to her as the husband was jobless while she was getting a handsome salary. The wife, argued in court that he has a share in his ancestral properties and even has properties in his name, but is suppressing those material facts before the Court.
The Karanataka High Court examined the circumstances of the case and noted that his exact share in the ancestral property was yet to be finalised and the same could not serve as a ground for enhancing maintenance for her. The high court also said that her financial statements made it clear that she could spend a significant amount on legal expenses.
To tell you in brief, the marriage took place on April 13, 2009, but soon after, she filed a Section 12 case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. She alleged that he demanded an Omni car and subjected her to physical and mental abuse when the demand was refused. The husband denied all allegations and after due trial, his petition was partly allowed.
The husband’s lawyer, Advocate Pradeep, said that his client (husband) used to run a school that later shut down, leaving him unemployed and financially incapable of paying any maintenance. The lawyer also stressed that she was earning more than Rs 1.5 lakh per month and did not need any enhanced maintenance from his client.
The husband, he added, owned just one acre of land, which has been mortgaged with the bank for Rs 4.5 lakh. The Karnataka High Court noted that the husband had failed to comply with the maintenance order, citing lack of funds. However, the court observed that his ability to raise Rs 4.5 lakh by mortgaging property indicated a reluctance, rather than inability to pay maintenance.
His lawyer said that on March 18, 2026, he paid Rs 10,000 and pleaded inability to pay the remaining amount. The wife’s lawyer contended that the husband also has a share in the ancestral property and therefore possesses sufficient means to pay not only maintenance, but also enhanced maintenance.
Taking note of these above mentioned factors into account, especially the husband’s claim that he is currently unemployed, a contention disputed by the wife, the Karnataka High Court ruled that there was no justification for any further enhancement of the maintenance amount, especially since the wife is employed and there are no children from the marriage, reported Livelaw.
Order:
- Therefore, the grounds urged in the revision petitions are hardly sufficient to interfere with the Orders passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
- Revision petitions are dismissed.
The court had passed this maintenance order against which the wife had filed an enhancement case in Karnataka High Court:
- The respondent (husband) is hereby restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person U/Sec. 18 of the Act.
- The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs 5,000 per month towards rent to aggrieved person (wife) from the date of this order.
- The respondent (husband) is hereby directed to pay Rs 4,000 per month towards maintenance to the aggrieved person (wife) from the date of this order.
- The respondent (husband) is directed to pay Rs.40,000 as compensation to the aggrieved person.
- The aggrieved person is not entitled for any other reliefs as prayed in the petition.
