Karnataka High Court: In cross writ petitions filed by husband and wife, a Single Judge Bench of Lalitha Kanneganti, J., held that annual share sale earnings are a part of husband’s income for determining interim maintenance, even if they are not received monthly. The Court observed that the perquisites forming part of the husband’s total income were relevant to the interim maintenance assessment and that the wife had a legitimate expectation of sharing the benefits enjoyed by the husband. The fact that the amount was used to repay loans did not exclude it from consideration, as the repayments were voluntary in nature. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the wife’s writ petition, dismissed the husband’s writ petition, and enhanced the monthly interim maintenance from ₹50,000 to ₹1,20,000.
Also Read: All HC on husband’s capacity to earn in maintenance cases | SCC Times
Background
The dispute between the parties concerned the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court (trial court). The wife filed a writ petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, while the husband filed a separate writ petition challenging the amount awarded and seeking a reduction.
The wife had filed a matrimonial petition seeking divorce under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Pending disposal of the petition, she sought maintenance of ₹1,75,438 per month for herself and their minor son, reimbursement of ₹6,60,000 towards expenses incurred in setting up the residence and maintaining the child, and litigation expenses of ₹3,50,000.
The husband was employed with Cisco Systems (India) (P) Ltd. and disclosed a monthly income of ₹3,00,248, as reflected in Form 16. He stated that his monthly expenses amounted to ₹1,96,885, in addition to an average of ₹13,000 per month towards the minor son’s school and transportation expenses.
After considering the statements and assets of both parties, the trial court awarded maintenance of ₹50,000 per month, payable from August 2025, when the wife was relieved from her employment. It noted that, according to her affidavit, the wife had been working as a manager at Randstad India (P) Ltd., earning ₹83,450 per month, until she was relieved on 25 July 2025 due to internal restructuring.
The Court also considered that she had to pay a monthly EMI of ₹26,000 towards car loan and ₹4800 towards the maintenance of flat. Regarding the husband, the Court noted his statement that his elderly parents were dependent on him. It was also recorded that the wife and the child were residing in their own flat, while the husband was living in a flat jointly purchased by the parties.
Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded, both parties filed writ petitions before the High Court.
Contentions
Husband’s Contentions
The husband argued that the trial court had awarded maintenance of ₹50,000 per month without adequate justification. He contended that the wife was not entitled to maintenance because she was qualified and capable of supporting herself.
He submitted that he had paid the child’s educational expenses up to that point, except for the Academic Year 2024—2025, and that the wife’s claimed monthly expenses of ₹1,75,000 were exaggerated. He further stated that, after meeting his expenses and paying ₹40,000 towards maintenance, he was left with only ₹50,000. Additionally, he claimed to be spending ₹50,000 and ₹27,000 on his dependants, namely, his great-grandmother and younger unmarried sister.
The husband further submitted that his gross annual salary was ₹62,92,042, excluding perquisites and the value of stock options amounting to ₹28,42,079. He argued that the value of these perquisites could not be included in his salary because he did not receive the amount every month. He also stated that the proceeds from the sale of shares had been used to repay loans taken for the 2 flats.
He further submitted that the wife continued to be entitled to medical facilities because the divorce had not yet been granted. He also offered to provide her with an insurance policy if she wished. Since the housing and educational expenses were already being taken care of, he argued that the maintenance amount should be reduced.
Wife’s Contentions
The wife, on the other hand, argued that the husband had suppressed material facts regarding his income. She contended that although he had claimed his monthly income to be approximately ₹2,90,000, his income tax returns reflected a total income of ₹91,34,121, a total taxable income of ₹88,35,269, and net tax payable of ₹26,89,065.
Accordingly, she submitted that, after deducting the tax payable from his taxable income, his annual income amounted to ₹61,46,204 (₹88,35,269 − ₹26,89,065), translating to a monthly income of more than ₹5,00,000. She argued that the husband had not disclosed these details before the Court.
The wife further contended that the perquisites and stock options valued at ₹28,42,079 formed part of the husband’s income, even though they were not reflected in his monthly salary. In support of this contention, she relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Nayanika Thakur Mehta v. Mohit Mehta, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7679.
She also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597, to argue that deductions towards loan repayments, particularly where such repayments resulted in the creation or acquisition of assets, constituted capital investments and could not be treated as essential or unavoidable expenditure.
The wife further submitted that she had been diagnosed with glaucoma in February 2026 and was undergoing treatment. She also suffered from an autoimmune disease and contended that her medical condition prevented her from securing employment. She argued that the insurance policy offered by the husband would cover hospitalisation or medical procedures but would not meet the expenses of regular check-ups and diagnostic tests.
Additionally, she argued that the trial court had erred in awarding maintenance only from the date she lost her job instead of from the date of the application. She contended that maintenance of ₹50,000 per month was disproportionate to the husband’s income of more than ₹5,00,000 per month and the standard of living he enjoyed. Accordingly, she sought enhancement of the maintenance amount.
Also Read: PF and ESPP deductions are not permanent charges: SC enhances maintenance | SCC Times
Analysis
The Court considered the contentions of both parties and examined their statements of assets and liabilities. It found that the husband’s claims of spending ₹50,000 and ₹27,000 on his grandmother and sister, respectively, could not be accepted as expenses incurred by him. The grandmother was no longer alive, while the sister was employed with Dell.
Regarding the husband’s contention that perquisites amounting to ₹28,42,079 did not form part of his income, the Court did not accept his argument. Upon examining his income tax returns, the Court noted that he received ₹20 lakhs to ₹28 lakhs annually through the sale of shares. Accordingly, these amounts formed part of his income even though they were not received every month. The Court found that the principles laid down in Nayanika Thakur Mehta and Deepa Joshi, relied upon by the wife, were applicable to the facts of the case.
The Court noted that although the medical records had not been placed before the trial court, they had been produced before the High Court and showed that the wife suffered from an autoimmune disease and glaucoma. The Court observed that the husband could not deny that, given her medical condition, the wife was unable to work.
The Court also noted that a substantial portion of the wife’s claimed expenses of ₹1,75,438 went towards repayment of her car and personal loans, amounting to ₹47,106. In addition, the mother and child had to meet their basic expenses, including clothing and domestic help.
The Court found that the trial court had failed to consider these aspects and had not awarded maintenance from the date of the application. Even at that time, the wife had to meet the child’s needs and pay the EMIs. The trial court had not adequately considered these obligations.
The Court further observed that the trial court had awarded maintenance of ₹50,000 per month only from the date the wife lost her job. However, a reasonable amount of maintenance ought to have been awarded from the date of the application, as the husband’s responsibility towards childcare existed even then. The Court also noted that the husband had repaid the loan towards the property to which the wife had contributed. Such repayment could not, by itself, be a ground for denying maintenance to the wife. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ respective contributions.” Add a line in Analysis: “The Court held Deepa Joshi, which treats loan repayments resulting in creation of assets as capital investment and not essential expenditure, applicable to the facts.
Decision
Considering the wife’s medical condition and other financial needs, the Court held that the maintenance awarded by the trial court was insufficient to meet the needs of both the wife and the child. It further held that the father was liable to reimburse the school expenses incurred by the wife for the Academic Year 2024—2025.
Accordingly, the Court held as follows:
-
Writ Petition No.5358 of 2026 filed by the wife is allowed, and Writ Petition No. 4253 of 2026 filed by the husband is dismissed.
-
Maintenance is enhanced from an amount of ₹50,000 to ₹1,20,000. This amount shall be paid from the date of the order of the trial court, i.e., 8 January 2026.
-
The wife is entitled for an amount of ₹30,000 from the date of application, i.e., 24 September 2024, till the date of order, i.e., 8 January 2026, as corrected by the Court’s order dated 07-10-20261
-
The husband shall continue to bear the child’s educational expenses.
-
The mother shall furnish the details of the fee paid to the father and the father shall reimburse the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
-
If there are any changed circumstances on behalf of the wife, husband or any incapacity on the part of the husband, they can seek for modification, and both the parties are at liberty to move the Court.
-
The arrears shall be paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
-
If the amount is not paid, the wife is at liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
[Elizabeth George v. Vivek George Jacob, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 15214, decided on 24-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Wife: Nishan G.K., Vijaylaxmi, Skand Arun Kumar, Advocates.
For the Husband: B.V. Shankar Narayana Rao, Senior Advocate, Dharani Krishna D., Advocate.
