NEW DELHI: The Karnataka high court has dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce from his wife on grounds of cruelty and desertion, and separately upheld an order directing him to pay Rs 20,000 a month as interim maintenance to his wife and child. The court held that a man who owns a Mercedes-Benz cannot claim that this amount is excessive.A division bench comprising Justices Jayant Banerji and T.M. Nadaf was hearing two connected matters — the husband’s appeal against a family court order that had refused him a divorce, and his separate plea challenging the interim maintenance awarded to his wife and son.What was the issueThe petitioner-husband had approached the family court in Bengaluru seeking divorce from his wife, alleging cruelty and desertion. The couple got married in 2009 and have a 12-year-old son. The husband claimed that his wife had left the matrimonial home without reason and refused to return despite his efforts, as per the court order.The wife denied the allegations and told the court it was her husband who had subjected her to physical and mental harassment. She further alleged he was in an extramarital relationship, which is why she chose to live separately, and produced 14 documents — including photographs — as evidence.The family court had examined photographs showing the husband at family functions and birthday celebrations with a woman and a child. It found that in cross-examination, the husband first admitted knowing the woman but later denied her identity. The family court ruled that he failed to prove cruelty by his wife, held that she had a reasonable cause to live separately, and dismissed his divorce petition. It is this order that he challenged before the high court.Separately, the family court had also directed the husband to pay Rs 20,000 a month as interim maintenance to his wife and son. He challenged this order too, through a writ petition, contending that the amount was excessive.What did the court sayThe high court found no reason to interfere with the family court’s decision on either count.On the divorce plea, the bench noted that the husband had relied on just two documents — a marriage invitation card and a photograph — to prove his case, and said he had “miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against the wife.”On the desertion charge, the court held that the wife’s decision to live apart was not without reason. It observed that granting the husband relief in these circumstances would “amount to rewarding premium to the wrong doer,” which was not the intent of the law under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench added that it found “no infirmities in the judgment and decree passed by the family court in dismissing the petition,” and dismissed the appeal.On the maintenance amount, the court pointed to the husband’s own admission during cross-examination that he was maintaining a Mercedes-Benz car, even though he said he was paying it off in instalments. The bench held that “for a person who could maintain Mercedes Benz Car, to pay Rs. 20,000 per month cannot be termed as excessive,” and dismissed the writ petition as well, confirming the maintenance order.The court directed the family court to dispose of the pending maintenance case as quickly as possible and clarified that the wife could initiate execution proceedings if the husband failed to pay.
