Justice Lalitha Kanneganti heard the petition arising from divorce proceedings where the wife moved an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.1,45,000 per month for her and her son, and Rs.1,00,000 towards litigation expenses

The family court ordered interim maintenance of ₹1,10,000 per month for the wife under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act.

crossorigin=”anonymous”>

     style=”display:block”
     data-ad-client=”ca-pub-8977519917162152″
     data-ad-slot=”1788679257″
     data-ad-format=”auto”
     data-full-width-responsive=”true”>

The husband had already been paying ₹1,03,382 per month to his wife voluntarily.

The husband challenged the order on the grounds that the wife is qualified, capable of earning and not entitled for maintenance, that he has already been paying Rs 1,03,382 per month to her, and that the wife sought maintenance for herself and the son, but a major son is not entitled for maintenance.

The High Court stated that prior voluntary payments clearly prove the husband’s financial capacity to pay and the wife’s need for support.

crossorigin=”anonymous”>

     style=”display:block”
     data-ad-client=”ca-pub-8977519917162152″
     data-ad-slot=”8011985447″
     data-ad-format=”auto”
     data-full-width-responsive=”true”>

Challenging the court-ordered amount after willingly paying a nearly identical sum was labeled “luxurious litigation” intended to waste the court’s time.

The High Court dismissed the husband’s petition, upheld the ₹1,10,000 monthly interim maintenance order, and imposed ₹2 lakh in costs (fine) on the husband.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a husband who voluntarily pays regular maintenance to his wife without a formal court order cannot later claim he is unable to pay or that his wife is capable of earning