A Bengaluru court has held that photographs and social media profiles, including LinkedIn and Facebook, cannot by themselves establish that a woman has sufficient income to maintain herself and her child and consequently disentitle her from maintenance.

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mohan Prabhu made the observation while rejecting a husband's contention that his wife was employed at a private company and therefore did not require financial support.

"The trial court records show that while addressing the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has produced certain photographs, LinkedIn profile and Facebook profile photos, and contended that the petitioner is working " the Court noted.

The Court, however, found that the husband had failed to establish his wife's actual earnings.

"The learned magistrate rightly held that the documents produced by the learned counsel for the respondent at the time of arguments cannot be relied," the Court observed.

It further held that even if the woman had secured employment, it would not necessarily establish that she earned enough to maintain herself and her minor child.

"Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has joined some job, then also it cannot be held that the petitioner is having sufficient income so as to maintain herself and her child," the Court said.

Hence, it proceeded to order the husband to give ₹20,000 as monthly maintenance to the wife.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a couple who married in Bengaluru in 2014 and subsequently moved to the United States, where the husband worked as an engineer.

The couple had a son before their relationship deteriorated. In November 2017, the woman returned to India with the child and began living with her parents.

She subsequently approached a magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging physical, mental and economic abuse.

In April 2025, the magistrate awarded ₹15,000 per month towards the child's maintenance, ₹1.6 lakh annually towards educational expenses and ₹8 lakh as compensation to the woman. However, the magistrate declined to grant her separate maintenance, considering her educational qualifications and earning capacity.

Both parties challenged the order before a sessions court.

While considering the rival submissions, the Court noted that the woman was unemployed when she filed the domestic violence petition.

Even the husband's statement of assets and liabilities did not disclose that she was employed, earning an income or possessed properties capable of generating income.

The Court emphasised that a woman's educational qualifications and capacity to secure employment could not automatically justify denying her maintenance.

It also considered the responsibilities of a mother raising a minor child.

"The mother who has custody of child not only has to spend money on the upbringing of the child but also spending substantial time and efforts in bringing up the child. We cannot calculate the same in terms of money," the Court said.

The Court held that educational qualifications or the possibility of securing employment could not, by themselves, justify denying maintenance to a woman.

It emphasised that the actual financial circumstances of the parties, their earning capacity and the responsibilities associated with raising a minor child must be considered while determining maintenance.

The Court also observed that the time and effort spent by a mother in raising a child could not be measured merely in monetary terms.

It further noted that economic abuse was expressly recognised as a form of domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that financial neglect could attract relief under the legislation.

It thus allowed the woman's appeal and ordered that she be paid a monthly maintenance of ₹20,000.