.webp)
The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because her claim for permanent alimony was earlier rejected. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha ruled that rejection of permanent alimony on the ground that the husband’s financial capacity was not proved does not, by itself, prevent the wife from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court accordingly directed husband to pay his wife Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance, while leaving the Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance already awarded to their minor son undisturbed. The order was passed on August 24, 2026, in RPFC No. 100065 of 2025.
Wife and her minor son had approached the Family Court at Hubballi seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 for the wife and Rs 10,000 for the son. The Family Court, in its December 5, 2024 order, rejected the wife’s claim but awarded Rs 5,000 per month for the child.
Wife challenged that decision before the High Court. Her case was that she had been subjected to cruelty and was living separately with her son. She also contended that she had no independent source of livelihood.
The husband opposed the revision petition, stating that he worked as an Assistant Accountant in a private company and earned Rs 29,000 per month. He also referred to his responsibility towards his parents and brother and argued that his wife, being an M.A. graduate, could maintain herself.
The High Court examined an earlier divorce proceeding in which wife’s request for Rs 10 lakh as permanent alimony had been rejected. The Court noted that the earlier rejection was not based on a finding that she was not entitled to financial support. Rather, the permanent alimony claim had failed because she had not established the husband’s financial capacity to pay the amount sought.
The Court therefore held that the Family Court had erred in treating the earlier rejection of permanent alimony as a reason to reject the subsequent maintenance claim.
The High Court observed:
"It is not the case of even respondent that petitioner No.1 is a working woman. Thus, only because she holds M.A. degree, maintenance cannot be denied to her. Also as earlier indicated, permanent alimony was not granted to petitioner No.1 only because she failed to establish the financial capability and status of the respondent/husband. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Family Court ought not to have rejected her claim for maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent/husband."
The Court also considered the husband’s stated monthly income of Rs 29,000 and noted that there was no substantive proof establishing that the wife could support herself through her own earnings. At the same time, the Court found no sufficient material to establish the alleged health condition of the husband’s brother.
Considering the husband’s stated income and the existing maintenance liability towards the minor son, the High Court directed him to pay wife Rs 5,000 per month towards her maintenance. The Court held that the Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the son required no interference.
The revision petition was allowed.
Case Title: S & Anr. v. R
Case Number: RPFC No. 100065 of 2025
