Rs 1,03,382 a month, paid voluntarily, has weighed against a husband in the Karnataka High Court, which held that a man who supports his wife without any court order cannot later claim inability to pay, and dismissed his writ petition with costs of Rs 2 lakh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Dismissing a husband’s challenge to an interim maintenance order of Rs 1,10,000 per month, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that, having himself paid his wife Rs 1,03,382 every month, he cannot now argue that she is capable of earning and that he is unable to pay, and has directed him to pay costs of Rs 2,00,000 to the wife [Dr K. Prem Anand v. Dr Susan Isaac].
The order was passed by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti on September 22, 2026 in Writ Petition No. 24806 of 2026. The Court described the petition as “luxurious litigation”.
His own payments counted against him
The Court noted that the husband’s statement of assets and liabilities did not comply with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. His income tax returns showed professional income of Rs 1,78,74,958 for 2024-25, although he claimed a net monthly income of only Rs 82,000. It then turned to the money he had been paying on his own:
“When the petitioner/husband himself is contributing to the wife an amount of Rs.1,03,382/-, it shows that she is not in a position to maintain herself and he has the capacity to pay the maintenance. Having paid the amount now he can not submit before this Court that she is capable of earning and he is not capable of paying.”
How the dispute reached the High Court
The parties were married on November 11, 2022 under the Special Marriage Act and have a son. The husband, Dr K. Prem Anand, began divorce proceedings. The wife, Dr Susan Isaac, a Prosthodontist with postgraduate qualifications, sought maintenance before the Family Court, which granted her interim maintenance of Rs 1,10,000 per month and Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses. The husband then came to the High Court against that order.
The two sides
Advocate K.S. Arun, for the husband, submitted that the wife is qualified, capable of earning around Rs 2,00,000 a month, and had deliberately left employment. It was also argued that she had suppressed her actual income, which she had stated as Rs 4,99,550 annually.
Advocate Satyen Bajaj, for the wife, contended that the husband runs multiple clinics in various cities and holds substantial assets, with bank statements showing credits of Rs 1,37,83,286.23 as of July 13, 2026. It was submitted that the wife gave up her employment after marriage, that she is entitled to the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and that the application was prompted by the husband’s threat to withdraw the financial support he had been providing.
Costs for “luxurious litigation”
Explaining why costs were warranted, the Court observed:
“The judicial process is intended to resolve genuine legal grievances and not to provide a ground for settling the ego of the parties. Such use of judicial proceeding deserves to be depreciated, where the valuable time of the court is wasted. This is nothing but luxurious litigation.”
The directions
- The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 2,00,000 payable to the wife.
- The Family Court must examine the statements of assets and liabilities filed by both parties and, if suppression of facts is detected, initiate appropriate proceedings in line with the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.
- Both parties are at liberty to file additional evidence and documents, including the material placed before the High Court.
- All pending interlocutory applications stand closed.
The order is an interim one in a pending matrimonial dispute. The contentions of both sides, including the financial allegations, remain to be tested before the Family Court, and the High Court’s observations are confined to the interim maintenance order under challenge.
Why the order matters
The ruling shows that a spouse’s own conduct in supporting the other during a marital dispute can be treated as an acknowledgment of dependency and capacity to pay. A husband who has been making regular payments without compulsion will find it difficult to argue, once an interim order is passed, that the wife can maintain herself or that he lacks the means.
It also reiterates that disclosure of assets and liabilities in the format laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha is not a formality, and that courts may impose heavy costs where proceedings are seen as a way of settling personal ego rather than resolving a genuine grievance.
Case Title: Dr K. Prem Anand v. Dr Susan Isaac [Writ Petition No. 24806 of 2026 (GM-FC)]
Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 22, 2026
Appearances: Advocate K.S. Arun for the petitioner (husband); Advocate Satyen Bajaj for the respondent (wife)