Bengaluru, Oct 7 The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a doctor's petition challenging an order directing him to pay Rs 1.10 lakh as monthly interim maintenance to his estranged wife, pulling him up for filing a "luxurious litigation," where the court's time was wasted.
The court also imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on him.
The couple got married on November 11, 2022, under the Special Marriage Act and have a son, who resides with his mother, who is also a doctor.
The petition was filed by the woman's husband challenging the maintenance order passed by the Family Court.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, in a recent order, said the judicial process is intended to resolve "genuine" legal grievances and not provide a ground for settling the "ego" of the parties.
"Such use of judicial proceedings deserves to be deprecated, where the valuable time of the court is wasted. This is nothing but luxurious litigation," the court said.
The court noted that the petitioner's case was that the son was not entitled to maintenance, but observed that the maintenance in question had been granted only to the wife.
"The petitioner/husband has no patience to even look at the order, where the maintenance is only granted to wife. This is a fit case to impose costs for wasting the judicial time," the court said.
According to the order, the woman said she had resigned from her job as a prosthodontist due to health issues and the difficulty of travelling around 50 km every day. She claimed she was earning about Rs 35,000 a month through professional consultations.
Appearing for her, advocate Satyen Bajaj submitted that her husband was a "very famous doctor" and had two clinics in Bengaluru and one each in Goa, Maldives and London.
Opposing the plea, the petitioner argued that his wife was a qualified postgraduate medical professional with around 15 years of experience and was capable of earning at least Rs 2 lakh per month.
The High Court directed the Family Court to examine the statements of assets and liabilities filed by both parties and take appropriate action if it finds any suppression of facts.
It also allowed both parties to place further evidence and documents, including additional documents submitted before the High Court.
The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 2 lakh, to be paid to the respondent-wife, the court said.
The Family Court was also directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in case of any suppression of facts in the statements of assets and liabilities, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in the case of Rajneesh vs Neha.
