Back
Labels Husband's Maintenance Challenge '', Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Costs
In a scathing order, the has dismissed a husband's challenge to an award, imposing Rs 2 lakh in costs and labeling his petition "" that wasted judicial time. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that a husband who voluntarily pays maintenance to his wife without a court order cannot later claim inability to pay when the court formalizes the amount.
‘’: High Court Slams Husband’s Challenge to Maintenance Order
The case arose from divorce proceedings filed by Dr. K. Prem Anand, a facial maxillo surgeon, against his wife, Dr. Susan Isaac, a prosthodontist. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the wife sought under , claiming Rs 1,45,000 per month for herself and their son, along with Rs 1,00,000 in litigation expenses. The granted Rs 1,10,000 per month as to the wife and Rs 50,000 as one-time litigation costs.
Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court, arguing that the wife was a qualified medical professional capable of earning, that he was already paying Rs 1,03,382 per month voluntarily, and that their major son was not entitled to maintenance. The court, however, found the challenge baseless and driven by ego rather than genuine grievance.
The Legal Context: Cannot Be Undone
Justice Kanneganti noted that the husband’s own admission of voluntarily paying Rs 1,03,382 per month to the wife undermined his arguments.
"When the petitioner/husband himself is contributing to the wife an amount of Rs.1,03,382/-, it shows that she is not in a position to maintain herself and he has the capacity to pay the maintenance,"
the court observed.
"Having paid the amount now he can not submit before this Court that she is capable of earning and he is not capable of paying."
The court also dismissed the husband’s contention regarding the son, pointing out that the Family Court’s order explicitly granted maintenance to the wife alone.
"The operative portion of the order clearly mentions that the maintenance is given to the wife, and when he is admittedly paying the amount, why he is aggrieved by such an order, this Court is not able to understand,"
the judgment stated.
What the Court Said: Key Observations
The High Court was particularly critical of the husband’s
.
"The
is intended to resolve genuine legal grievances and not to provide a ground for settling the ego of the parties,"
Justice Kanneganti remarked.
"Such use of judicial proceeding deserves to be depreciated, where the valuable time of the court is wasted. This is nothing but
."
The court also scrutinized the husband’s , finding that it failed to comply with the guidelines laid down by the in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021). The husband had claimed a net professional income of only Rs 82,000 per month after deductions, while listing substantial assets and expenses, including multiple loans and EMIs totaling over Rs 4.66 lakh per month. The court observed that the statement did not reveal his actual income and directed the Family Court to examine whether either party had suppressed facts or made false statements, and if so, to initiate appropriate proceedings.
The Final Verdict: Dismissed with Costs
The High Court dismissed the with costs of Rs 2,00,000, payable to the wife. It also directed the Family Court to look into the statements of assets and liabilities filed by both parties and take action if any suppression is found. Both parties were given liberty to place additional evidence, including documents submitted before the High Court.
The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against in maintenance matters, reaffirming that voluntary payments cannot be later disowned and that courts will not tolerate misuse of their time for settling personal scores.
