The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an order directing a husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹8,000 each to his wife and son, observing that an able-bodied person cannot escape his legal responsibility merely by claiming that he is currently unemployed.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the husband's petition after finding no error in the concurrent orders of the trial court and the revisional court.
Background of the Case
The parties married on June 16, 2003. After marital disputes arose, multiple legal proceedings were initiated between them. One such proceeding was a maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Pandavapura.
On February 3, 2022, the trial court awarded monthly maintenance of ₹8,000 each to the wife and the son. The husband challenged the order before the Sessions Court, but the revision petition was dismissed. He then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to set aside both orders.
The husband argued that he was no longer employed and was financially incapable of paying ₹16,000 every month. He also contended that his wife, being an enrolled advocate, had sufficient means to support herself and therefore should not receive maintenance.
On the other hand, the wife, appearing in person, informed the court that ill health had prevented her from practising law. Counsel for the son also pointed out that the husband had failed to comply with the maintenance order and that arrears had reportedly accumulated to around ₹21 lakh.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that both the trial court and the revisional court had carefully assessed the financial circumstances of the parties before awarding maintenance.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, the High Court reiterated that maintenance is a measure of social justice intended to protect a wife and children from financial hardship.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench observed,
"The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation."
The Court further observed that if a husband has lost his job or earns less, it is his responsibility to seek suitable employment rather than leave his wife and child without support.
The Bench also rejected the husband's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, holding that the revisional court had already examined the matter in accordance with the principles laid down in that decision.
Finding no legal infirmity in the earlier orders and taking note of the husband's failure to comply with the maintenance directions, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the criminal petition.
The Court allowed the maintenance order directing payment of ₹8,000 per month each to the wife and the son to remain in force.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri Harish R. v. Smt. Sowmya and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3011 of 2023
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: July 7, 2026
