Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23943
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
SRI. RAVI S/O. LATE VARADAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SHWETHA B S – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 16711 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. PRASANNA V R.
For the Respondents: SMT. PRATHIMA K.
A husband has a legal obligation to provide maintenance for his wife and child, even if the wife possesses educational qualifications but is currently unemployed.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Maintenance - The Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- for educational expenses, considering the husband's income of Rs.51,259/- and deductibles - The husband contends it is excessive as the wife is capable of earning but not able to find employment, and thus should not be granted maintenance at such a rate. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) The duty of the husband to take care of the wife and child is reinforced as part of marital obligations, irrespective of the wife's educational background and employment status. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-husband is challenging a Family Court's order granting maintenance to his wife and child citing income disparities and the wife's ability to work.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's decision, noting it only granted 25% of the husband's take-home income for maintenance, which is not exorbitant.
Issues: Key issues included whether the wife, being educated, is entitled to maintenance, and if the maintenance granted was excessively high.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Family Court’s decision stating that the husband's obligation to support his wife and child remains, regardless of her qualifications or current employment, especially considering the child's needs. The maintenance amount was deemed reasonable (Paras 7)
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintenance order details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding maintenance amounts. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding maintenance claim (Para 6) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the maintenance (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.50/2021 dated 13.05.2024 by the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards the educational expenses of the child, the husband is before this Court.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case that the wife had filed I.A.No.2 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to herself and to the son. It is her case that the husband is working as a head constable and earning sufficient income. In spite of the same, he is not maintaining the family. It is the case of the husband that wife is a B.Sc. graduate and certified fashion designer and drawing salary of an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards educational expenses of the son.
4. While granting the maintenance, the Family Court had observed that the wife in her affidavit of assets and liabilities has not shown her educational qualification. She has shown that she is residing in her parents’ house. In the affidavit also she has shown the salary of the husband as Rs.60,000/- per month. The husband in his affidavit of assets and liabilities has shown his qualification as B.A. and his general monthly expenses are shown as Rs.50,000/-. He has also shown his gross salary as Rs.51,259/- and take home salary at Rs.25,420/-. He has also shown that he is paying EMI of Rs.10,500/- and also placed his pay slip. The Family Court had considered the fact that the child is now aged below 10 years and the amount of Rs.20,000/- that is claimed by the wife is on the higher side and it is the duty of the husband to take care of his wife and the child. Accordingly, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards the educational expenses of the child.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/
husband submits that when the take home salary of the husband is Rs.25,420/-, the Family Court ought not to have granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the maintenance which is on the higher side. It is submitted that the Family Court had failed to consider the fact that the wife is educated and she is capable of earning and in fact, she is earning and she has suppressed all these facts. It is further submitted that when the husband had filed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife had filed a counter claim for divorce and also filed this petition seeking maintenance. It is submitted that the wife who is capable of earning and is not entitled for maintenance.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that though she did her B.Sc. and certification course in Fashion Technology, she is not able to get a job and in fact she is even trying hard only with the help and assistance from her parents she is able to maintain the child. Learned counsel further submits that it is the duty of the father to take care of the child and as a husband, it is his duty to take care of the wife and the Family Court had rightly granted the maintenance and there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Admittedly, the income of the petitioner/husband is Rs.51,259/-. He has shown that he is paying EMI of Rs.10,500/- and after other deductions, his take home salary is Rs.25,420/-. Considering the fact that the wife is not working and the wife and child has to live and she also has to take care of the educational expenses of the child. The Family Co
