The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife, even as he claimed unemployment.
Background of the Case
The case, Mr. Prakash Murigeppa Harapanahalli vs Mrs. Shwetha Walvekar, arose from a short-lived marriage solemnised in July 2021. Both parties were previously divorced.
According to court records, the relationship soon turned strained. The wife alleged neglect and sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, initially demanding ₹70,000 per month. The Family Court in Bengaluru, however, granted ₹20,000 as interim maintenance in August 2025.
The husband challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that he had lost his job in September 2023 and was surviving on savings and his parents’ pension.
The husband contended that the Family Court failed to properly consider that the wife was employed and earning over ₹40,000 per month. He argued that interim maintenance should not be used to equalise incomes between spouses.
On the other hand, the wife maintained that she had received no financial support since May 2022. She pointed out that the husband was a highly qualified software engineer who had previously earned a substantial salary. She also placed on record tax documents showing significant past income and highlighted his ownership of properties.
Justice K. Manmadha Rao, after examining the material on record, focused on the principle of “capacity to earn” rather than current employment status.
“The law is clear that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his responsibility merely by pleading unemployment,” the bench observed, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha.
The Court noted that the husband’s past income and professional qualifications indicated a strong earning capacity. It also clarified that a wife’s employment does not automatically bar her from receiving maintenance.
“The Court must consider whether the income is sufficient to maintain a lifestyle similar to that during the marriage,” the judge said.
In this case, the wife’s salary was found to be modest compared to the husband’s earlier earnings.
The High Court held that the Family Court had acted within the law and that the maintenance amount of ₹20,000 was reasonable.
Finding no legal error or unfairness in the order, the Court dismissed the husband’s petition. It also directed him to clear all pending arrears of maintenance within three months.
Case Details
Case Title: Mr. Prakash Murigeppa Harapanahalli vs Mrs. Shwetha Walvekar
Case Number: WP No. 33410 of 2025
Judge: Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Decision Date: 17 April 2026
