Wife Earning More Than Husband Cannot Claim Interim Maintenance Under DV Act, Rules Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court sets aside a Mysuru magistrate's order directing a husband earning ₹60,646 per month to pay ₹20,000 interim maintenance to a wife earning ₹1,00,000 monthly, holding that courts must consider the wife's income before granting maintenance.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has set aside an interim maintenance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mysuru, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, sitting singly, allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the husband, after finding that the Trial Court had entirely ignored the wife's own admitted monthly income of ₹1,00,000 while directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month from his salary of approximately ₹60,646. The judgment lays down that maintenance — interim or final — is warranted only when the wife lacks sufficient financial resources to maintain herself according to the standard of her husband's life.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The marriage between the petitioner, Sri Ravi S @ Jeevan S., a resident of Gonikoppa, Dakshinakodagu, and Respondent No. 1, Smt. Sahana Devi A., was solemnised in 2024. According to the petitioner's counsel, the wife lived with him for only two months before leaving. She subsequently filed a complaint with the police and also filed a petition before the Mysuru magistrate invoking Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petition was filed not only against the husband but also against his father, mother, two brothers, sister, and brother-in-law, who were arrayed as Respondents 2 to 7.

The wife sought, among other reliefs, a restraint on acts of domestic violence, suitable residence or rent, monthly maintenance of ₹1,13,515, clearance of marriage debts, compensation for mental and emotional agony, and litigation charges of ₹50,000. Along with the main petition, she moved an interlocutory application under Section 23(1) of the Act seeking interim maintenance of ₹1,13,515 per month and ₹50,000 towards litigation charges.

The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the interlocutory application and directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance. The husband challenged that order before the High Court by way of the present writ petition.

The Legal Issue: Whether a Wife's Own Income Is Relevant to Interim Maintenance

The central question before the High Court was whether the Trial Court could award interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act without examining the wife's own financial capacity. The petitioner's counsel argued that the wife's TDS records showed a monthly salary of ₹1,64,285, and that she herself had disclosed in her affidavit of assets and liabilities that she earned ₹1,00,000 per month. The husband, by contrast, worked at Genpact India Private Limited and drew a gross salary of ₹63,346 and a net salary of ₹60,009 as per his October 2025 pay slip.

The wife's counsel countered that she was the only child of her parents and had incurred debts for the marriage, making the Trial Court's direction to pay ₹20,000 per month justified. However, the High Court noted that no material was produced by the wife detailing the loans she claimed to have taken — neither the amounts, the dates of borrowing, nor the outstanding EMIs. Even her own affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities did not mention any such loan details.

How the Bench Reasoned

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha examined the affidavits filed by both parties. The husband's affidavit disclosed his employment at Genpact India Private Limited and a monthly salary of ₹57,309, which was not disputed by the wife. His pay slip for October 2025 confirmed a gross salary of ₹63,346 and net pay of ₹60,009. The wife's own affidavit stated her monthly income as ₹1,00,000. The TDS annual tax statement on record showed her salary for April through July at ₹1,64,285 per month, with tax deducted at approximately ₹15,000 per month.

The High Court found that the Trial Court, at paragraph 12 of its order, had discussed the husband's earnings based on his bank statement and pay slip but had not considered the wife's income at all. The bench held that this omission rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

The judgment articulates a clear principle: “Only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final.” The bench observed that courts cannot proceed on the assumption that a wife must be maintained by her husband regardless of her own financial position. Where the wife's income exceeds the husband's and she has no other obligations such as caring for children, courts should not grant maintenance merely on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men.

Applying this to the facts, the court found that the wife's admitted income of ₹1,00,000 per month was sufficient for her to maintain herself. Directing the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month out of his earnings of approximately ₹60,646 — without any finding that she lacked the means to maintain herself — was, in the court's view, legally untenable.

The bench was careful to limit the reach of its observations. It expressly stated that its findings on the merits were confined to testing the validity of the impugned interim order and would have no bearing on the final disposal of the main case or on any fresh interim applications the wife might file in the event of a change in circumstances.

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mysuru, on I.A. No. I in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 2025 dated 19 December 2025, directing the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance, was set aside. The court clarified that its observations on the merits shall not affect the final disposal of the main case or any future interim applications filed by the wife on account of changed circumstances.