- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 121 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMEETH H.P. D/O PUTTARAMEGOWDA W/O PAVANKUMAR V AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. KUM.JASHRITHA P D/O PAVAN KUMAR V AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN THE PETITONER NO 1 BOTH ARE R/AT NO.63 MIG- I, GROUP II KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI MYSURU -570 017 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND: PAVAN KUMAR V., S/O SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 267, HOSABEEDHI KASABA HOBLI, RBI POST K R MILL COLONY MYSURU-570 003 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.774, 2ND FLOOR 4TH CROSS NEAR SRIKRISHNA TEMPLE GOKULAM 2ND STAGE Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 MYSURU -570 002 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.126/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on Crl.Misc.No.126/2022 dated 30.12.2023 passed by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, the wife is before this court. 2. Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The family court had refused the maintenance to the wife. By order impugned the family court has directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the daughter towards her maintenance from the date of the order till daughter attains the age of majority or till completion of her education, whichever is later. Further the husband is directed to incur 60% of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 educational and medical expenses of the daughter subject to production of original bills/receipts by the wife from the concerned institutions and also the husband was directed to pay arrears of interim maintenance to the daughter as per the order dated 28.10.2022 within 30 days from the date of order. Since the daughter is minor, the husband shall pay/transfer the maintenance amount to the wife on or before 05th of every succeeding month regularly. The wife is at liberty to furnish her bank account details to the husband for transferring the maintenance amount every month. 4. The wife is before this court mainly on the ground that the Family Court had refused to grant maintenance to her. The family court had considered the fact that the wife is employed at L & T company as Lead Manager and she is drawing salary of Rs.85,000/- per month and subsequently she had produced her pay slip which reveals that her present gross salary is Rs.1,09,882/- p.m. and take home salary is Rs.94,920/- p.m. When it comes to the husband's income, the family court had observed that the husband had placed before the court his pay slip for the month of September, 2022 and October, 2023 vide memo dated 07.12.2023 to show that his gross earnings is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 Rs.1,58,385/- p.m. and his net salary is Rs.1,32,036/- p.m. The family Court has also discussed the fact that merely because the wife is also employed, the husband cannot escape from his responsibility and put entire burden on the wife and the family court felt that considering the difference between the income of the husband and the wife, the court has observed that the husband should take more responsibility financially. However, considering the little difference between the salary of the husband and the wife and the fact that she is gainfully employed, the family court had not granted maintenance. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife has submitted before this Court just because the wife is gainfully employed that itself cannot be reason for not granting maintenance to the wife. He submits that even if the wife is earning still she is entitled for the maintenance and it the right of the wife and duty of the husband to pay maintenance. He has drawn the attention of this court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha 1 and particularly relied on Paragraph No.61 to 64 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 61 . Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the Respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the Respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. (c) Where wife is earning some income 62. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments. 63. In Shailja and Anr. v. Khobbanna,12 this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.10 Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. 13 64. In Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha MANU/SC/0964/2014 : (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, 17-11-2020 (Page 30 of 48) www.manupatra.com Library Dwarka she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Then he had relied on another judgment in the case of Shailja and Anr Vs. Khobanna2 2 AIR 2017 SC 1174 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 ISSUE II: RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE OF WOMEN CAPABLE OF EARNING AND FEMINISM Based on the above discussion, we can naturally assume that in India, legally, women have the right to be maintained to prevent them from reaching a position of destitution. Ideally, such a protection must be applicable in cases where women are unable to support themselves and, not in all instances, in order to ensure that its purpose is served well. However, in the instant matter³, the court differentiated between a woman capable of earning and an actual working woman for the grant of the quantum of maintenance, thus, widening the scope of the purpose of such laws. While an actual working woman would have a reduced amount of maintenance as compared to a non-earning woman, based on the status of the husband, a woman capable of earning but not working would be legally provided with the same amount of maintenance as a woman incapable of working. It becomes necessary to analyse this from the prism of feminism and whether this position violates the principle. Now, feminism in itself is a wide ideology and are of multiple kinds. For instance, as per liberal feminism, other than procreative differences, men and women have no differences and hence, women must not be given special rights different from men. According to this, this judgment is in violation of the principle of liberal feminism. On the other hand, if we were to look at the position of this through the lens of Marxist feminism, we would conclude a contrary opinion from the aforementioned as Marxist feminism recognises family as a site of oppression along with subordination of women under capitalism³. Similarly, radical feminists further acknowledge women as an oppressed group requiring protection from the bouts of patriarchy and objectification. Finally, modern feminism, specifically Indian feminism10 also calls for defining social, economic and political rights for women for establishing a society based on equity, thus in tandem with the current judgment. By attempting to analyse this case by way of different kinds of feminisms, we have essentially - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 understood the relevance and importance of the positions taken by both the High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court. It can be noticed that the contrary positions taken by both the Higher judicial courts stem from the differences in the different kinds of feminism, and both the courts have passed a judged based on their reliance on one or more of these kinds. Thus, we can say that, right to maintenance of even women capable of earning goes hand in hand with the principle of feminism. The learned counsel has relied on Sunita Kachwaha And Ors Vs. Anil Kuchwaha 3 particularly relied on Paragraph No.10 10.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant- wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The Family Court had in extenso referred to the respondent’s salary and his economic condition. The respondent is stated to be an Engineer in PHE, Kota. He is in Government service and according to the pay certificate then produced before the Family Court, he was getting salary of Rs.20,268/- per month. In her evidence, appellant-wife has also stated that the respondent owns a very big house of his own in which he is said to have opened a hostel for boys and girls and is earning a substantial income. She has also stated that the respondent 3 AIR 2015 SC 554 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 owns another house at Talmandi Sabji Kota, Rajasthan and is receiving rental income of Rs.4,500/- per month. Having regard to the salary and economic condition of the respondent, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,500/- to each of the daughters, in total Rs.8,000/- per month. It is stated that the maintenance amount awarded to the daughters has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month. The maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to the wife appears to be minimal and in our view, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award of maintenance. The learned counsel for the appellants prayed for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance to the appellant-wife. We are not inclined to go into the said submission, but liberty is reserved to the appellant- wife to seek remedy before the appropriate court. The learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale 4 relied on Paragraph No.23 23. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Laxman Kamble vs. Shobha Ramchandra Kamble, 2019 All. M.R. Cri. 426, wherein this Court after adverting to a number of pronouncements had enunciated the legal position to the effect that, there are several rulings, which take the view that an agreement in which the wife gives up or relinquishes her right to claim maintenance at any time in future, is opposed to public policy and, therefore, such an agreement, even if voluntarily entered, is not enforceable. 4 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 The learned counsel also relied in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan5 Paragraph No.15 15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to 5 AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2025 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors.[13] has held as follows:- "The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate." Relying on these judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that the wife is earning, the court cannot refuse to grant maintenance to the wife. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel that it is the inherent right of the wife to seek maintenance from the husband. Further, when it comes to the educational expenses several bills/receipts are placed before the Court and also an application is also filed stating how and the manner in which the insurance and the reimbursement should take place and this court has specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner which part of the family court order he is aggrieved. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 It is submitted that he is aggrieved by the order of the family court where the maintenance is refused to the wife. In these circumstances this court is not inclined to go to in any other aspect but the entitlement of the wife. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that when the wife is earning she is not entitled for maintenance and the family court had rightly fastened more responsibility on the husband and he is made to pay 60% of the medical and 60% of the educational expenses. Whenever he has to pay 60% of the medical expenses as he has the insurance and is paying the premium if those 60% bills are given to the husband, he would be paying and based on the order passed by this court, some of the bills are placed before the court and he has pointed out at those bills and submits that those bills are all xerox copies and they are not the originals, basing on that he will not be able to get the reimbursement. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The first and the foremost submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife that in spite of the wife earning still she is entitled to maintenance and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 the husband has to pay the maintenance. There is no such ratio laid down in any of the judgments. What has been dealt in those judgments is that if a wife is earning meager sum of the amount, whether she is entitled for any maintenance. In this case, if wife is earning an amount Rs.10,000/- and the salary of the husband is Rs.1,00,000/-, in spite of the fact that wife is earning, the Court would be looking at the disparity between the income of both the parties and the requirements of the wife and how she will be able to live her life with that amount, the Court would be considering it. Here, it is a case where the gross salary of the wife is Rs.1,09,882/- p.m. and take home salary is Rs.94,920/-. When it comes to the husband, his gross earning is Rs.1,58,385/- p.m. and his net salary is Rs.1,32,036/- p.m. The difference between both the salaries is about Rs.40,000/- and odd. In those circumstances, the family court has held that the wife is gainfully employed and she is earning sufficiently and wife is not entitled for maintenance. 9. Then coming to the second limb of the order, because husband is earning more, the family court had directed the husband to pay 60% of the medical expenses and 60% of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 educational expenses where the Court has balanced the interest of the wife as well as the interest of the husband. When it comes to the children, it is the responsibility of both the parents to take care of the children. When they are employed and earning more or less equally, the Court will balance the interests of the parties and by the impugned order, the family court had rightly passed an order refusing to grant maintenance to the wife. Then, when it comes to the 60% of the educational and medical expenses, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent, unless and until the receipts for 60% of the medical expenses are given to the father, he cannot be expected to pay the said amount. In view of the order passed by the family court, whenever the medical expenses are incurred by the wife, she has to give the bill/receipts for that 60% of the amount and basing on that the husband has to comply with the order. In case if the husband has failed to pay the amount as per the order of the Family Court it is always open to the wife to file application to execute the said order. Hence, this court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the family court as far as refusing the maintenance to the wife. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27840 RPFC No. 121 of 2024 10. In the light of the above discussion, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The RPFC is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1