Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition challenging an order granting interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the Single Judge Bench of Chillakur Sumalatha, J., allowed the petition, holding that interim maintenance cannot be granted as a matter of course merely because the wife invokes the provisions of the DV Act. Observing that a financially independent wife earning substantially more than the husband, with no proven financial liabilities, is not entitled to interim maintenance, accordingly, the Court set aside the trial court order directing the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month, holding the trial court erred to consider the wife’s admitted income.
The Court observed that,
“Only because a woman more particularly a wife files a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot simply pass an order awarding some amount towards maintenance payable by the husband.”
Background
The dispute arose from an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysuru, granting the wife interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month under Section 23(1), DV Act, during the pendency of proceedings instituted under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed the present writ petition contending that while his monthly income was around ₹60,000, the wife was employed in a private company and earned more than ₹1,00,000 per month. Therefore, she was fully capable of maintaining herself and was not entitled to interim maintenance and that the grant of interim maintenance was wholly unjustified.
Analysis and decision
The Court examined the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties and noted that the husband’s net monthly salary was around ₹60,000 and that the wife herself had disclosed a monthly income of ₹1,00,000, while the TDS records produced before the Court reflected that her monthly salary is ₹1,64,285. The Court found that even after the wife claimed that she had borrowed money for her marriage and was repaying loans, she had neither disclosed the particulars of such liabilities in her affidavit nor produced any supporting material.
The Court noted that while the trial court had considered the husband’s salary and recorded that he was employed with Genpact India Private Limited with a monthly salary of ₹60,646 but had completely overlooked the wife’s admitted income of ₹1,00,000, per month. The Court observed that the trial court ought to have considered the income of both parties before determining entitlement to interim maintenance. The Court opined that the trial court totally ignored the earnings of the respondent’s wife and passed the impugned order.
The Court observed that,
“Only because a woman more particularly a wife files a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the right to claim maintenance is recognised, the Courts cannot simply pass an order awarding some amount towards maintenance payable by the husband.”
The Court observed that where the wife is financially independent, earns more than the husband with no other financial liabilities such as maintaining children, then courts should not award maintenance merely on the premise that a husband is bound to maintain his wife. The Court further observed that maintenance, whether interim or final, is warranted only when the wife establishes that she lacks sufficient financial resources to maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living enjoyed by her husband.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the order granting interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the legality of the interim order and would not influence the adjudication of the main proceedings pending before the trial court.
[Ravi S. v. Sadhna Devi A., WP NO. 2327 of 2026, decided on 18-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Devaraj M., Advocate
For the respondent: Somarjuna V M., Advocate
