Case Name: W v. H
Case Number: WP No. 5358 of 2026 C/W WP No. 4253 of 2026
Date: 24th September, 2026
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Quorum: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti
FACTS
Cross-writ petitions have been filed by both the wife (WP No. 5358/2026) and husband (WP No. 4253/2026) against a temporary order of the Family Court, Bengaluru. The said order entailed an amount of Rs. 50,000 as maintenance for both the wife and the son. The wife had sought divorce under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act along with a maintenance amount of Rs. 1,75,438 apart from the earlier mentioned maintenance amount plus educational expenses and litigation expenses. The wife had lost her job due to restructuring in her organisation in July 2025. The wife also suffered from glaucoma and an autoimmune disorder. The husband earns money but has contested that the disposable income would be much less, as the earnings would have been exhausted in paying EMIs for loans and expenses for dependents.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Do you believe that the Family Court made a mistake when it granted maintenance to the wife only from the time she lost her job and not when she applied for maintenance?
- What do you think about the appropriateness of Rs. 50,000 being ordered for interim maintenance, which is to be paid by the husband to the wife, according to the wife’s needs and according to the husband’s actual salary? Please explain.
- Do you believe that it is important to consider the benefits given to the husband by the company, like stocks and discounts, while calculating his total income?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- During pendente lite, divorce and support claims are governed by Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act.
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution govern the filing of writ petitions before the High Court.
- Section 151 of CPC grants permission to the wife for filing of an application in case of non-receipt of dues.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS (WIFE) – The spouse contended that the spouse had kept his actual income concealed from everyone. It was indicated by her that the total earnings of the spouse, including ESOPs, amounted to more than Rs. 91 lakhs. In addition to it, she presented details regarding her health problems, which did not allow her to get any job. At the same time, she stated that the upkeep should be assigned from the date of the application since, from that point of time, she had responsibilities to fulfil, such as child care duties.
RESPONDENTS (HUSBAND) – According to the husband, the judgment stating Rs. 50,000 monthly maintenance was very high. He argued that there are variable perquisites and stock options worth Rs. 28 lakhs, so it should not be considered as regular earnings. He stated that after tax deduction and other expenses, his disposable income is just Rs. 50,363 and that he is taking care of the education expenses of the child as well.
ANALYSIS
The Court determined that the husband’s income from the sale of shares (about Rs. 20 to 28 lakhs per year) has to be included in the calculation of his total income even though it is not received by him each month. Citing previous judgments in similar matters, the Court stated that the fringe benefits and ESOPs should also be considered while measuring the financial capacity. The Court noted that the wife has provided sufficient medical proof of her health condition, which includes autoimmune disease and glaucoma. The Court stated that the Family Court failed to take into account the expenses of the wife starting from the day she filed her application. The Court stressed that the voluntary financial obligations, including repayment of the loans, should not come first over obligations arising out of the law in terms of maintenance payment.
JUDGMENT
The wife was allowed to proceed with her writ petition in the High Court, while the husband’s petition was dismissed. The grant of interim maintenance was raised to Rs. 1,20,000 per month from the sum of Rs. 50,000, with effect from the date of passing of the original judgment. The wife was also granted an additional amount of Rs. 30,000 from the date of filing of the application up to September 24, 2024. The husband was directed to take care of educating the children and make payments for the arrears within the subsequent four weeks.
CONCLUSION
The High Court ruled that one must take into account variable bonuses like ESOPs when calculating one’s overall income, that one’s discretionary spending and repayments of loans do not invalidate the obligation to provide for support and that the ruling requires one to take into account various medical conditions, as well as the earning spouse’s true financial condition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
Read the Judgement copy below : W v. H
