A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru held as follows:

From Para 7,

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that respondent No.1 is the only child to her parents. No doubt she is earning around ₹1,00,000/- per month, but she is under obligation to clear all the debts which she incurred for her marriage. Therefore, Trial Court rightly directed petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of ₹20,000/- towards interim maintenance and thus this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

From Para 8,

8. …

No material whatsoever is produced by respondent No.1 which gives the details of the loans she obtained and the EMI’s. Even in the affidavit filed disclosing her assets and liabilities she has not mentioned the details of those loans, when she obtained and what amount is still due to be paid. Trial
Court made an observation at para 12 of the impugned order that as per the bank statement and pay slip produced by respondent No.1, it is evident that he is employed with Genpact India Private Limited and is drawing gross monthly salary of ₹60,646/-. The Trial Court did not consider the income of respondent No.1/wife at all. In her affidavit given disclosing assets and liabilities she herself mentioned that she gets ₹1,00,000/- per month as salary. The Trial Court which discussed about the earnings of petitioner/husband ought to have discussed about the earnings of respondent No.1/wife and thereafter should have come to a conclusion with regard to the entitlement for interim maintenance. But, totally ignoring the earnings of respondent No.1/wife, the impugned order came to be passed.

From Para 9, (Slipper shot!) Trial Court judge has no sense of difference between a case of DV and a case of neglect… Thuuu…

9. Only because a woman more particularly a wife files a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards maintenance payable by the husband. When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final.

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/wife-income-higher-than-husband-no-maintenance-unless-wife-unable-to-maintain-herself-539208

https://courtbook.in/posts/karnataka-hc-says-wife-earning-more-than-husband-cannot-claim-interim-maintenance-without-financial-need

https://mynation.net/docs/2327-2026

https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/karnataka-hc-maintenance-only-when-wife-cannot-maintain-herself-to-husband039;s-standard

https://thelexpedia.com/judgements/sri-ravi-s-at-jeevan-s-v-smt-sahana-devi-a-others-2026

Index of Maintenance under Judgments under PWDV Act is here.