Employed Wife Earning ₹54,700 Cannot Claim Maintenance From Husband: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, holding that a well-educated, employed wife who herself supports her parents cannot be treated as dependent on her husband under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, by an order dated 30 October 2026, allowed the husband’s revision petition (RPFC No. 231 of 2025) but directed him not to initiate any proceedings to recover the maintenance paid so far.

The revision was filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 04.07.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, which partly allowed the wife’s petition under Section 144 BNSS. She had sought ₹85,000 per month. The Family Court held that, although the wife is employed and earns ₹54,700 per month, the husband’s income is higher, so she is liable to be maintained by him, and awarded ₹20,000 per month. As the parties are husband and wife, the Court has referred to them only in those terms.

The Court noted that the wife claimed the husband earns about ₹40 lakh per annum, while the husband said the wife is a B.E. graduate in Computer Science earning about ₹10 lakh per annum. Following Rajnesh v. Neha, it took the figures from the parties’ own affidavits of assets and liabilities, which showed the husband’s monthly income at ₹2,00,000 and the wife’s at ₹54,700, with the wife also stating that she spends about ₹35,000 per month on her dependent parents.

The husband argued that the wife is well educated and in a decent job, that his own medical expenses and responsibility to his parents are heavy, and that the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance only because he earns more. The wife’s counsel was on record but did not make submissions before the High Court.

The Court held that to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS, a wife must establish that the husband neglected or refused to maintain her and that she is unable to maintain herself, and only after that does the husband’s economic position arise. It found that the wife, by her own version, works as a technical writer, earns ₹54,700 per month and spends ₹35,000 on her parents, so it could not appreciate her stand that she is depending on her husband.

The Court accepted that the husband’s financial status is higher than the wife’s, but noted that his health condition, even on the wife’s own version and the documents she produced, justified his plea that he has to spend a large amount on treatment. It held that inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition to claim maintenance, that the law does not provide that a married woman must be maintained by her husband in all circumstances, and that “Gainful employment, financial independence and self sufficiency” are good grounds to reject a claim.

Setting aside the Family Court order, the Court held that if a wife’s income is grossly low and insufficient to maintain herself, she is undoubtedly liable to be maintained by her husband, but here the amount she earns is being used to maintain her parents, so she cannot be considered dependent on her husband. It allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of 04.07.2025.

Finally, with the intention to avoid further rupture of the relationship and to keep the doors of amicable settlement open, the Court ordered that the husband shall not initiate any proceedings for recovery of any amount paid so far to the wife as maintenance.

Appearances: For the Petitioner (Husband): Smt. T.R. Rajeshwari, Advocate. For the Respondent (Wife): Smt. K. Vani, Advocate.

Case Title: Husband v. Wife, Revision Petition (Family Court) No. 231 of 2025

[Read Order]