Pending appeal no excuse to refuse maintenance for wife, says Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: A husband's challenge to a conjugal rights' order does not absolve him of his obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and child, the Karnataka High Court has affirmed.

Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while dismissing a petition filed by the husband, a resident of Nasik, Maharashtra, who got married in November 2011.

In 2015, the husband filed for marriage dissolution, citing his wife's departure from their matrimonial home. In response, the wife sought conjugal rights restoration in 2016. On September 28, 2020, the Bengaluru Family Court granted the wife's petition while dismissing that of the husband.

Despite the court order, the husband refused to take back his wife and child. Consequently, the wife filed an execution petition for enforcement of the order, along with an interim maintenance application.

On October 8, 2021, the family court directed the husband to pay Rs 25,000 per month in maintenance, effective September 28, 2020.

Challenging both orders, the husband argued that interim maintenance could not be granted in an execution petition, and he claimed to already pay Rs 20,000 monthly under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The wife pointed out that the high court did not stay the order on the petition filed by the husband.

The court pointed out that the husband ceased to pay Rs 20,000 maintenance from September 2, 2020, awarded under DV Act.

"The categorical submission of the counsel for the husband is that the petitioner cannot take the wife and the child back to the matrimonial house. Therefore, if the husband does not want the wife and the child back, he cannot escape maintenance merely because he has challenged the order of restitution of conjugal rights before this court,” it said.

The court also said the circumstances would have been different if the husband continued to pay maintenance under the domestic violence case or in the matrimonial case after the decree.

“Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the court concerned, though duplication of maintenance under any provision of law is impermissible. In the case at hand, I find no duplication of the amount, as maintenance is stopped from September 2, 2020, and only maintenance that is granted is the impugned maintenance,” the court said.