The Karnataka High Court said that though the wife had alleged that she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband, 'no substantive proof was produced to that effect'. (Image generated using AI)The Karnataka High Court held last month that leaving a matrimonial home without reasonable cause and justification is “certainly a disqualification” for a wife to seek maintenance from her husband.A bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing a woman’s plea challenging a family court order dated November 29, 2023, which rejected her application for monthly maintenance.Observing that a wife can be granted maintenance if her husband neglected or refused to maintain her and if she is unable to maintain herself, the bench said in an order on August 25, “When a wife fails to meet statutory requirements or her case attracts disqualifications, her claim is liable to be rejected.”Dismissing the woman’s plea, the bench said, “Petitioner failed to establish that there exists reasonable cause due to which she withdrew from the society of the respondent. Having discussed all these facts, the family court came to a conclusion that the petitioner/wife is not entitled for any maintenance from her husband.”Also Read | Wife can’t be expected to follow husband like ‘Vodafone pug’: Madras High CourtWhat the husband arguedOpposing the plea, the husband argued that they had been married for over 25 years. He said that in 2021, his wife went to her parents’ house to care for them after they contracted COVID-19. However, she later refused to return to her matrimonial home despite his repeated requests. He alleged that she even filed a case against him when he visited her parents’ house to ask her to return.The husband further submitted that their elder daughter was employed and that he had taken a loan to purchase a property in his wife’s name. He contended that there was no valid reason for her to leave the matrimonial home.‘No proof of harassment’In its order, the bench noted that the evidence produced by the husband showed that their elder daughter was employed after completing her education. It further observed that the wife neither claimed to have borne her educational expenses nor that any of her relatives supported her financially.Story continues below this adAlso Read | No ‘joint parenting’ concept in India: Bombay High Court sets aside 50:50 custody order“So far as the allegation of the petitioner that she was harassed and she was subjected to cruelty by respondent/husband, no substantive proof was produced to that effect before the family court,” the bench said.Stating that the wife went to her parents’ house because they contracted COVID-19, the court said, “Thus, it cannot be held that due to the attitude of respondent, petitioner left matrimonial home and went to her maternal home.”The bench observed that while the law on maintenance is meant to promote social justice, prevent exploitation, protect the vulnerable and uphold human dignity, “the grant is not automatic”.