An able-bodied and educated husband cannot evade his legal and moral obligation to support his estranged wife by claiming he has no income, the Karnataka High Court has ruled while upholding an order directing a man to pay Rs 15 lakh in permanent alimony.
A division bench comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan dismissed an appeal filed by the husband challenging a family court directive. The bench emphasized that when a husband is physically capable of working, he is required to earn a livelihood and provide maintenance to his spouse.
The ruling affirmed a March 20, 2024 decision by a family court that dissolved the couple’s marriage and awarded the woman a lump-sum permanent alimony of Rs 15 lakh.
Financial Capacity And Legal Precedents
In its August 20 order, the high court observed that assessing maintenance requires balancing the financial capacities, assets, liabilities, standard of living, and reasonable needs of both spouses, alongside the paying party’s commitments.
Citing Supreme Court precedents including Rajnesh v Neha, Reema Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan, and Anju Garg v Deepak Kumar Garg, the bench noted that courts must arrive at a fair amount that ensures the spouse can live with dignity and provide for dependent children.
The court took into account that the husband had previously worked for a government undertaking. It held that the family court had properly evaluated the socio-economic standing of both parties and the woman’s responsibility in raising their child when fixing the Rs 15 lakh sum.
Husband Challenged Only Alimony Award
The couple married on February 5, 2009, and separated three months later on May 5, 2009. The husband subsequently petitioned for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty, desertion, and refusal to perform marital duties.
The wife contested his claims, stating she had faced verbal and physical abuse from the husband and his family. She stated that she was forced out of the matrimonial residence while two months pregnant and gave birth to their son on December 9, 2009, without financial or emotional support from her husband. Although she had earlier obtained an order for the restitution of conjugal rights, the husband did not resume cohabitation.
Following the family court’s decree dissolving the marriage, the husband challenged only the alimony directive before the high court. The wife did not appeal the divorce decree, making a re-examination of cruelty or desertion claims unnecessary.
The husband argued that the wife had not formally sought permanent alimony, lacked proof of her financial needs, and earned approximately Rs 30,000 per month, while he was already paying Rs 15,000 in monthly maintenance. The high court rejected this contention, noting that the husband failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating her alleged earnings.
Payment Timeline And Directives To Family Courts
Under the terms recorded by the high court, the Rs 15 lakh permanent alimony will replace the husband’s previous obligation to pay Rs 15,000 per month in interim maintenance.
The bench noted that the husband had already deposited Rs 7.5 lakh following an interim high court order dated November 13, 2024, which the wife was permitted to withdraw immediately. The court directed him to deposit the remaining balance of Rs 7.5 lakh within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment.
The bench concluded by reiterating that family courts across the state must strictly enforce the Supreme Court’s Rajnesh guidelines. It directed trial courts to mandate that both parties submit detailed affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities before deciding on any maintenance or alimony claims, ensuring objective and realistic financial assessments.
