BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka said that payment of Rs 60,000 maintenance per month to the wife cannot be termed high, when the husband is earning Rs 7 lakh per month.
“The income of the husband being Rs 7 lakh per month, award of Rs 60,000 as maintenance to the wife cannot be considered to be on the higher side... Looking at the state of the wife who has remained a homemaker throughout, in juxtaposition to the status of the husband, who earns close to Rs 1 crore per annum, the amount of maintenance awarded cannot be branded to be more. Therefore, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the court granting such maintenance,” said Justice M Nagaprasanna, while rejecting the petition filed by the husband.
The husband, aged 50, questioned the order passed by the family court in Mangaluru in September 2023, awarding Rs 60,000 per month as maintenance on an application filed by the wife, aged 47, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order was passed after taking into consideration the income of the husband and mental condition of the wife, which requires regular treatment and for which a huge amount is to be spent.
The man, who is from Mangaluru and presently residing in Bengaluru, married the woman in 2002, after which their relationship turned sour and floundered. The husband sought to annul the marriage on the ground that the wife went into depression in 2016, and had to get treated by a psychiatrist for her mental illness.
Meanwhile, the wife filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs 1.50 lakh per month from the husband, and Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses, invoking Section 24 of the Act. In response to this, the family court awarded Rs 60,000 as maintenance. The husband’s counsel contended that the application was preferred by the wife’s sister for maintenance, and the money would not be utilized by the wife or for the wife, but would be eaten away by others. Maintenance of Rs 60,000 granted is on the higher side and may be reduced by 50 per cent, his counsel argued, while also seeking to quash the entire maintenance order.
The court said the senior counsel representing the husband would make a futile attempt to convince the court that the wife is mentally unsound, and the money would not be spent for her treatment. This submission was noted only to be rejected, as the husband is aware that the wife is mentally unsound and needs treatment for her depression, it is the duty of the husband to come forward and pay the maintenance required to the wife.