The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by a qualified software engineer under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru on IA No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.685/2022, whereby the Family Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to his estranged wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, while pronouncing the order dated 17th April, 2026 in Writ Petition No.33410 of 2025 (GM-FC), held that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and is just and reasonable.
The petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife solemnized their marriage on 04.07.2021 at the Ulavi Channabasaveshawara Temple in Dharwad, Karnataka. Both parties were divorcees at the time of marriage. The matrimonial relationship was short-lived and marked by significant discord. The petitioner alleged that the respondent treated him primarily as a personal financier and used threats of criminal complaints to extract funds. He claimed that the respondent deserted the matrimonial home in May 2022 without information. The respondent-wife, on the other hand, filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC on 23.09.2022 seeking Rs.70,000/- per month, contending that the petitioner had failed to provide any maintenance since May 2022 and that the marriage was marked by cruelty and intimidation.
The petitioner, a qualified software engineer, contended before the Family Court and the High Court that following organizational restructuring he lost his job with his last working day being 08.09.2023 and is currently unemployed, sustaining himself through savings and his parents’ pension. He urged that the Family Court failed to consider the respondent’s independent income and his own lack of employment as disclosed in the respective Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities. It was further urged that the law regarding interim maintenance is not intended to equalize the income of spouses and, given the respondent’s stable employment, the order imposes an arbitrary burden upon an unemployed spouse.
The respondent-wife, who holds an M.Sc. from Sunway University, Malaysia and has been employed since January 2023 as Administrative Support (SQA) at Elanco, Bangalore earning a salary exceeding Rs.40,000/- per month with no dependents, produced Tax Deduction Statements (TDS) for the years 2022-2024 demonstrating the petitioner’s total taxable income of Rs.45,50,288/- and Rs.66,29,532/- respectively. She submitted that the petitioner was earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,50,000/- at Innominds Software Pvt. Ltd. during the subsistence of marriage and owns a 3BHK house in Yelahanka, Bengaluru as well as two properties in the United Kingdom.
After hearing learned counsel Sri Kapil Dixit for the petitioner and Sri Rego L.P.E. for the respondent, the Court carefully perused the impugned order and the material on record. The primary issue for adjudication was whether the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month is just and reasonable. The Court observed that “Regarding Capacity to Pay, the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 is unequivocal: an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and cannot evade his legal obligation by merely citing unemployment.” It noted that “The Petitioner’s TDS records demonstrate a substantial earning capacity. His professional qualifications and past lucrative income signify a continued capacity to meet matrimonial obligations.”
On the aspect of the wife’s income, the Court held that “it is well-settled that gainful employment is not an absolute bar to awarding maintenance. The Court must assess if the income is sufficient to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Given the Petitioner’s documented monthly income during the marriage, the Respondent’s salary of Rs.40,000/- is comparatively modest and does not bridge the status gap.” Regarding the quantum, the Court recorded that “the Respondent initially sought Rs.70,000/-. The Family Court judiciously reduced this to Rs.20,000/-, which this Court finds to be a conservative and supportive maintenance amount intended to prevent destitution relative to the Petitioner’s status.”
The Court concluded that “This Court finds that the learned Family Judge has correctly applied the principles enunciated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. There is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference. The order of the Family Court is just and reasonable.” In view of the above, the writ petition was dismissed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 was upheld and the petitioner was directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months from the date of the order.
Case Title: [Petitioner-Husband] v. [Respondent-Wife]
Case No.: Writ Petition No.33410 of 2025 (GM-FC)
Date of Order: 17 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 