The Karnataka High Court recently expressed strong disapproval of a woman's request for over ₹6 lakh per month in maintenance from her estranged husband, stating that if she wishes to spend that much, she should support herself financially.
During the hearing, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti advised the woman against "exploiting the judicial process" and noted that this case would serve as a "clear warning to all litigants" who attempt to misuse the law.
"She wants ₹6,16,300 per month for expenses? Will she be awarded maintenance based solely on her husband's income? If her husband earns ₹10 crore, should the Court grant her ₹5 crore in maintenance?
Is it reasonable for her to have such expenses just for herself? If she wants to spend that much, she should earn it herself," the judge remarked during the hearing.
The Court was reviewing a petition filed by the woman seeking an increase in the maintenance amount previously set by a lower court.
While the family court had awarded her ₹50,000 per month in maintenance, the woman appealed to the High Court, arguing that her monthly expenses exceeded ₹6 lakh and requested an increase to at least ₹5 lakh per month.
Her attorney, Akarsh Kanade, argued that the petitioner required nutritious food, leading to a monthly expense of ₹40,000 for dining out.
He also pointed out that while the woman's estranged husband wore "branded clothes" costing ₹10,000 each, she had to wear old clothes and needed ₹50,000 for clothing, accessories, and an additional ₹60,000 for cosmetics and medical expenses.
Justice Kanneganti responded that the Court was not a marketplace for negotiations.
"This is not a venue for bargaining. You should accurately present your client’s actual expenses.
We are giving you one last chance to be reasonable; otherwise, the case will be dismissed," the judge warned.
The Court also observed that the woman had not provided any details about child-rearing costs, noting that the claimed ₹6,16,300 was only for her personal expenses.
Additionally, it was noted that the respondent's counsel, Adinatha Narde, claimed the woman had ₹63 lakh in shares according to her bank statement. The petitioner’s counsel denied this, stating that the maintenance claim was based on anticipated, not actual, expenses.
The Court reminded the lawyer that claims must be based on actual expenses, not projections.
"Given the nature of the claimed expenses, which seem solely personal and not including other liabilities or child care, the Court cannot accept this as a reasonable monthly expenditure.
As a final opportunity, the petitioner must file an affidavit detailing her actual required expenses," the Court stated. The case is scheduled for further hearing on September 9.
