Judge Questions ₹10,000 Child Support From ₹12,000 Salary: ‘How Will He Live?

A case in the Karnataka High Court has sparked significant debate after a judge expressed surprise over a court’s decision to require a man with a monthly salary of ₹12,000 to pay ₹10,000 in child support. The incident, captured on video, has since gone viral, drawing widespread attention and comments from the public.

Judge’s Surprising Observation

During the proceedings, the judge questioned the logic behind granting such a large portion of the man’s income for child maintenance. “First of all, from a person’s salary of ₹12,000, how can the court grant ₹10,000 for maintenance? How will he live?” the judge asked, clearly taken aback by the situation.

The judge further elaborated, questioning the evidence used to justify such a decision. “When a person is taking home ₹12,000 salary, how can the court grant ₹10,000 to the child? It can’t be,” she added, expressing concern about the man’s ability to sustain himself on the remaining ₹2,000.

Case Background

The case was brought to the High Court by a wife seeking maintenance from her husband. During the hearing, the wife’s lawyer informed the judge that the trial court had granted ₹10,000 per month for the child’s maintenance but nothing for the wife. This prompted the judge to inquire about the man’s earnings, leading to the revelation that his gross salary was ₹18,000, with a take-home pay of ₹12,000.

The judge suggested that the wife could file a separate application for an increase in child maintenance if the husband’s salary had increased since the original ruling.

Public Reaction on Social Media

The video, originally published on the Karnataka High Court’s official YouTube channel, has garnered widespread attention, with social media users weighing in on the judge’s comments.

One user on X (formerly Twitter) questioned how maintenance payments are managed if a person becomes unemployed, while another compared the accumulation of unpaid maintenance to defaulting on an EMI or loan, noting that arrears would eventually need to be paid with interest.

Others debated the fairness of requiring husbands to pay maintenance in cases where wives might be capable of earning more. “Why are husbands always liable to pay maintenance when wives can earn much more nowadays?” one user asked, reflecting a sentiment shared by others in the online community.

A Broader Debate

The incident has sparked a broader conversation about the fairness and practicality of maintenance orders, particularly in cases where the payer’s income is limited. The judge’s remarks highlight the complexities involved in balancing the financial needs of children with the ability of parents to meet those needs without compromising their own survival.

As discussions continue, this case serves as a reminder of the challenges courts face in making decisions that affect the lives of families, and the need for these decisions to be grounded in both legal reasoning and practical considerations.