Husband Must Find Work If Jobless, Seek Better-Paying Work If Salary Is Low To Maintain Wife, Child: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has observed that if a husband has no job, it is his responsibility to find one, and if his existing job pays an insufficient salary, he must seek better-paying work to fulfil his legal obligation to maintain his wife and child.

The Court stressed that a wife and child cannot be left in the lurch merely because the husband claims to be unemployed or inadequately paid.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the husband's petition challenging the orders of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court, which had awarded monthly maintenance of ₹8,000 each to his wife and child under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband contended before the High Court that he was currently unemployed and therefore unable to comply with the maintenance order of ₹16,000 per month. He also claimed that his wife, an enrolled advocate, earned more than he did.

The wife, appearing in person, disputed the claim, stating that she is suffering from ill health, which has prevented her from practising even for a day, and therefore the maintenance awarded by the concerned Court must not be interfered with.

During the hearing, it was also pointed out that the husband had not complied with the maintenance order passed in February 2022 and that arrears had mounted to around ₹21 lakh.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the issue before the Court was whether to accept the submission of the Husband’s counsel that the petitioner has no avocation today and, therefore, the maintenance awarded 4 years ago has not been complied with, even to its semblance.

Rejecting the husband's plea, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, reiterating that it is the sacrosanct duty of an able-bodied husband to provide financial support to his wife and minor child.

Referring to the Supreme Court's observations, the High Court said:

"If the husband has no job, it is for him to search for a job. He has a job that pays less salary, it is for him to search for a job that pays higher salary and take care of the wife and the child. The child and the wife cannot be left in the lurch".

The Court further noted that the petitioner's submission regarding his son's age would have deserved consideration only if he had first complied with the maintenance order. Since he had failed to pay the maintenance awarded by the courts below, his conduct disentitled him to any relief.

The husband had also argued that the courts below had failed to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The High Court rejected the contention, observing that the Revisional Court had undertaken an even more elaborate scrutiny than what was contemplated in Rajnesh v. Neha. It further held that, in any event, the petitioner's conduct did not warrant the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife and son.

Case Title: Sri Harish R. v. Smt. Sowmya & Anr.

Date of Order: July 7, 2026

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna