LI Network
Published on: 18 September 2023 at 14:45 IST
The Karnataka High Court underscored the principle that if a husband enjoys a comfortable and opulent life, his wife should not be left in a disadvantaged position concerning her maintenance.
The court decided to double the interim maintenance amount awarded to the wife, asserting that she should not have to compromise her standard of living or the educational opportunities for their child.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, in his judgment, directed the husband to provide a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 1.5 lakh to his wife, a significant increase from the initial monthly allowance of Rs 75,000 as granted by the family court.
Additionally, the high court ordered the husband to cover the legal expenses incurred by his wife and the educational costs for their child.
The couple entered into matrimony in 2001 and shares a 21-year-old son, due to marital discord, the wife filed a complaint against her husband in 2021, alleging cruelty and seeking the dissolution of their marriage.
In her plea for interim maintenance, the wife requested a monthly sum of Rs 2 lakh, in addition to Rs 5 lakh to cover legal expenses and their child’s education.
In October 2022, the family court in Bengaluru granted the wife interim maintenance of Rs 75,000 per month, a decision that was subsequently contested by both parties.
The wife argued that the awarded amount was inadequate, considering her husband’s lavish lifestyle. She claimed that he operated five successful companies and spent Rs 11 lakh monthly on himself, which included maintaining a fleet of cars.
Conversely, the husband argued that the maintenance amount was already on the higher side, emphasizing his business loan of Rs 2.4 crore and the monthly EMI payment of Rs 7.7 lakh.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted the husbands has a evident success over his career, overseeing his five thriving companies. The judge also noted that the business loan was secured after the wife initiated legal proceedings.
Rejecting the husband’s petition, Justice Nagaprasanna asserted that if the husband could afford to maintain a fleet of cars and meet a loan repayment EMI of Rs 7,72,000, he should not be exempted from his obligations towards his wife and child.