The Karnataka High Court recently expressed strong disapproval regarding a woman's request for monthly maintenance of over ₹6 lakh from her estranged husband. The court remarked that if she wished to spend such a substantial amount on herself, she should consider earning her own livelihood.

During the hearing on August 21, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti also warned the woman about “exploiting the process of the court” and stated that the court intends to use this case to deliver a “loud and clear message to all litigants” who believe they can take advantage of the legal system.

“She wants ₹6,16,300 as expenses? Per month? She will not be given maintenance based just on what her husband is earning. What is her requirement? Husband must be earning ₹10 crore so, will the Court give her ₹5 crore as maintenance? She spends this much per month...a single lady on herself? If she wants to spend, let her earn..." the judge observed during the hearing.

The Court was reviewing a petition from a woman seeking an increase in the maintenance awarded by a lower court. While the family court had set her maintenance at ₹50,000 per month, the woman approached the High Court arguing that her monthly expenses exceeded ₹6 lakh and requested an enhanced maintenance amount of at least ₹5 lakh per month.

Her counsel, Advocate Akarsh Kanade, argued that the petitioner required nutritious food and was forced to eat out, with food expenses totaling ₹40,000 per month. He also highlighted that the woman's estranged husband wore “branded clothes” and t-shirts costing ₹10,000 each, while she was limited to old clothing and needed ₹50,000 for clothing and accessories, plus ₹60,000 for cosmetics and medical expenses.

Justice Kanneganti responded by stating that the Court was not a marketplace for litigants to negotiate.

The Court also observed that the woman had not accounted for any expenses related to child-rearing, and the ₹6,16,300 she claimed as monthly expenditure was solely for her personal needs. Additionally, the Court noted a claim by the respondent's counsel, Adinatha Narde, that the woman had ₹63 lakh in shares according to her bank statement.

The petitioner’s counsel disputed this, stating that the claimed maintenance amount did not reflect actual expenses but rather anticipated costs. The Court then reminded the lawyer that the law does not permit claims based on anticipated expenses.