The Karnataka High Court recently warned against passing orders directing husbands to pay maintenance to wives who are not in any need of such financial assistance.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that the court would have to assess the circumstances of the wife while passing such maintenance awards

"When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband," the Court held.

The judge cautioned that family courts should not be swayed by gendered assumptions that wives must always be maintained by husbands.

"Only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final," the Court said.

The Court made the observation while setting aside a trial court order directing a man to pay his estranged wife ₹20,000 as interim maintenance.

In a petition before the High Court, the husband had contended that the trial court did not consider that he earned around ₹60,000 per month whereas his wife earned much more, over ₹1 lakh per month.

The High Court found merit in his argument, noting that the trial court had ignored the earnings of the wife while passing the said order.

The wife countered that she had to clear the debts incurred for her marriage but did not give details of the pending unpaid amount, loans, and EMIs in her affidavit.

However, High Court concluded that the interim maintenance order passed in her favor should be set aside, since she was financially sound and could not give clear details of what marriage-related debts she needed to clear,

"In the case on hand, the income of respondent No.1/wife is more than that of petitioner/husband. With her admitted income that is ₹1,00,000/- she can maintain herself. Therefore, there is no requirement for the Trial Court to order the writ petitioner/husband to pay a sum of ₹20,000/- per month out of his earnings i.e. ₹60,646/- per month. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is unsustainable in the eye of law," the Court ruled.

The Court, however, clarified that its ruling only concerns the interim maintenance order under challenge and should have no bearing on the final outcome of pending proceedings before the trial.

"(The High Court's observations) shall have no bearing upon the final disposal of the case or upon any interim applications if any already filed or going to be filed by respondent No.1/wife claiming maintenance even interim due to change of circumstances," it said.

Advocate Devaraj M represented the husband.

Advocate Somarjuna VM represented the wife.