Case at a Glance
A Family Court in Chikkamagaluru ordered a software professional to pay his wife ₹20,000 a month under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 because he earned more than her. The wife, an engineering graduate, herself stated that she earned ₹54,700 a month and spent about ₹35,000 a month on her parents. Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held that inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition for maintenance and that a wife who maintains her parents cannot be called dependent on her husband. The revision was allowed, but the husband was told not to seek recovery of amounts already paid.
The wife, a B.E. (Computer Science) graduate working as a Technical Writer, filed Crl.Misc. No. 172 of 2024 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, claiming ₹85,000 a month. On 4 July 2025 the Family Court partly allowed it and directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 a month, mainly because his income was higher than hers. The husband, a Senior Technical Leader, stated in his affidavit that he earned ₹2,00,000 a month and ₹70,000 from other sources; the wife alleged his income was ₹40 lakh a year.
The husband challenged the order in a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. He pointed out that the wife was employed and supported her parents, that he had a ₹40 lakh marriage loan (₹10 lakh repaid) and a ₹30 lakh housing loan, and that he had chronic Type-1 diabetes requiring insulin four times a day, spending about ₹70,000 a month on medical costs for himself and his parents. The wife alleged dowry harassment and that he had concealed health conditions. Her counsel did not make submissions at the hearing.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a wife who earns a steady salary and maintains her own parents entitled to maintenance under Section 144 BNSS merely because her husband earns more?
Inability to Maintain Herself Comes First, Not the Husband’s Income
The Court explained that under Section 144 BNSS the claimant must first establish that the husband neglected or refused to maintain her and that she is unable to maintain herself; only then does the court look at the husband’s means. “Inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition to claim maintenance,” the Court said, adding that “Law does not state that a married woman under all circumstances should be maintained by her husband.” The Court noted Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 11 SC CK 0009 on affidavits of assets and liabilities.
On the facts, the wife’s own statement that she spends about ₹35,000 a month on her parents was decisive: “she is maintaining her parents. Therefore, she cannot be considered to be the dependent of her husband.” The Court said it “cannot appreciate her stand that she is depending upon her husband”, and noted that the husband “is required to spend huge amount for his treatment.” It distinguished cases where a wife’s income is so low it cannot sustain her, holding that this was not such a case. Still, “to keep the doors of amicable settlement open”, it barred the husband from recovering what he had already paid.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Section 144 BNSS, the wife must show that she is unable to maintain herself; a higher income of the husband does not, by itself, decide the claim.
- A wife who earns ₹54,700 a month and spends about ₹35,000 a month maintaining her parents cannot be treated as dependent on her husband.
- The Family Court order of 4 July 2025 in Crl.Misc. No. 172 of 2024 awarding ₹20,000 a month was set aside and the revision petition allowed.
- To avoid further rupture and keep settlement possible, the husband was ordered not to initiate proceedings to recover maintenance already paid.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a clear High Court statement that maintenance under the BNSS is not automatic for an earning wife.
- It shows that a claimant’s own admissions about income and expenses can defeat her claim.
- The no-recovery direction is a useful model for courts balancing a legal win with the chance of reconciliation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses
- A salaried wife may still claim maintenance, but must show her income cannot sustain her at a reasonable standard.
- Statements in your own affidavit about spending on others can be used to show you are not dependent.
- Health costs and loans of the husband are relevant to the overall assessment.
For Counsel
- Lead evidence first on inability to maintain herself; do not rely on the income gap alone.
- Use the Rajnesh v. Neha affidavits carefully: they bind your client on income and expenses.
- Where a revision succeeds, consider seeking a no-recovery direction to protect the client from counter-proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 144 BNSS.
- Higher husband income alone does not justify an award.
- A wife who supports her own parents was held not to be dependent.
- Amounts already paid need not be refunded, the Court directed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean a working wife can never get maintenance?
No. The Court said a grossly low income that cannot sustain the wife would be different. Here, her own stated salary and spending on parents showed she was not dependent.
Which law was applied?
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 125 CrPC.
Does the wife have to return the maintenance already received?
No. The High Court directed the husband not to initiate proceedings to recover any amount already paid.
Conclusion
The ruling restates a basic but often overlooked condition of Section 144 BNSS: maintenance is meant for a wife who cannot maintain herself, not a tool to equalise incomes. On the wife’s own figures, the Karnataka High Court found no dependence.
Practical takeaway: In maintenance claims by earning spouses, the decisive evidence is the claimant’s own income-and-expense affidavit; prepare it accurately and argue inability to maintain first.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com