The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a husband’s challenge to an order directing him to pay ₹1.10 lakh per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife and imposed ₹2 lakh in costs for what it described as misuse of judicial proceedings.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, in the September 22 order, observed that the petitioner had approached the court without properly examining the family court’s order and had incorrectly proceeded on the basis that maintenance had also been awarded to the couple’s adult son.
The High Court said judicial proceedings are meant to address genuine legal grievances and should not be used to settle personal ego disputes. It described the petition as “luxurious litigation” and held that the case warranted costs for wasting judicial time.
Family Court Had Granted Maintenance Only to Wife
The couple, both doctors, had married under the Special Marriage Act and have a son. After differences arose between them, they began living separately and the husband filed a divorce petition before the family court.
During those proceedings, the wife sought ₹1.45 lakh per month as interim maintenance for herself and her son, along with ₹1 lakh towards litigation expenses.
She stated that she had resigned from her job as a prosthodontist because of health issues and the difficulty of travelling around 50 km every day. According to her, she was earning about ₹35,000 per month through professional consultations.
The family court directed the husband to pay ₹1.10 lakh per month as interim maintenance to the wife and ₹50,000 as one-time litigation expenses.
The husband then approached the High Court challenging that order.
Court Questions Disclosure of Husband’s Income
Before the High Court, the wife’s counsel, advocate Satyen Bajaj, submitted that the husband was a well-known doctor with two clinics in Bengaluru and one each in Goa, the Maldives and London. It was also submitted that his father lived in an apartment worth ₹4 crore and owned several movable and immovable assets.
The husband, however, argued that his wife was a postgraduate medical professional with about 15 years of experience and was capable of earning at least ₹2 lakh per month. He also claimed that he was already financially supporting her and their son.
The High Court noted that the husband had not disclosed his actual income and had merely stated that he received ₹80,000 after deductions. The court said a party was required to disclose income from different sources along with expenditure, but the husband appeared to have failed to furnish complete particulars in his statement of assets and liabilities.
The court also cautioned him against withholding or suppressing material information relating to his income and assets and said the family court should examine the statements of assets and liabilities filed by both sides and take appropriate action.
Previous Payments Showed Capacity to Maintain Wife
The High Court further noted that before the family court passed its maintenance order, the husband himself had been contributing ₹1.03 lakh to the wife.
The court said this indicated both that the wife was unable to maintain herself and that the husband had the financial capacity to provide maintenance. Having already paid that amount, the husband could not subsequently contend that the wife was capable of earning sufficiently or that he lacked the ability to pay, the court held.
The court also rejected the husband’s contention regarding maintenance being granted to the son, noting that the family court’s order clearly recorded that the ₹1.10 lakh monthly amount was awarded to the wife.
Finding no ground to interfere with the family court’s order, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, upheld the direction to pay ₹1.10 lakh per month as interim maintenance to the wife and imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on the husband.
