Person Who Can Maintain a Mercedes Benz Can't Call ₹20,000 Excessive: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a husband's challenge to an interim maintenance order directing him to pay Rs.20,000 per month to his wife and child, holding that a person who admittedly maintains a Mercedes Benz car cannot claim such an amount to be excessive. 

A Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and T.M. Nadaf passed the order while dismissing a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the husband against the rejection of his divorce petition, along with a connected writ petition challenging the maintenance order.

The petitioner-husband, and the respondent-wife, were married in 2009 and have a son. The husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the wife had abandoned the matrimonial home without reason and made baseless allegations against him and his family. The wife denied these claims, contending that it was the husband who had subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, and that she was living separately because of his illicit relationship with another woman.

The Family Court, Bengaluru, dismissed the divorce petition, relying on photographs produced by the wife showing the husband participating in family functions and celebrating the birthday of a child born to him from a relationship with another woman. It noted that the husband had admitted in his initial cross-examination that the woman in the photographs was his friend, but later denied her identity, and held that his having filed a suit against her and certain television channels over the photographs' publication did not explain away their contents. The Family Court also noted that the husband's father had gifted property to the couple's son and continued to visit the wife's parental home to check on the child's welfare, undermining the husband's case of desertion.

Before the High Court, Senior Counsel for the husband argued that the prolonged separation of nine years showed the marriage had irretrievably broken down, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and other precedents to contend that continued separation alone could justify a decree of divorce, and that the Family Court ought to have granted the same at least on the ground of desertion.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that allowing the appeal would amount to rewarding the wrongdoer, which is not the object of Section 13 of the Act. It found that the husband, relying only on the marriage invitation card and a photograph, had failed to prove cruelty, and that desertion requires willful neglect without reasonable cause, which could not be said of the wife given the husband's relationship with another woman.

“Any exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court would amount to rewarding premium to the wrong doer, besides amounting to applying salt to the injury, without there being any fault found against the wife, as she is living apart with a reasonable cause.”

On the connected writ petition challenging the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month awarded under Section 125 CrPC, the Court found no infirmity, noting the husband's own admission in his cross-examination that he was maintaining a Mercedes Benz car.

“For a person who could maintain Mercedes Benz Car, to pay Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be termed as excessive.”

The Court accordingly dismissed both the appeal and the writ petition, confirming the maintenance order and directing the husband to continue paying Rs.20,000 per month to the wife and child, while granting the wife liberty to seek execution in case of default. The Family Court was directed to expeditiously dispose of the pending maintenance proceedings. No order as to costs was made.

Appearances: Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Jayasimha K.P., appeared for the petitioner-husband, while Sri. Ramakrishnaiah C. appeared for the respondent-wife.