In a recent ruling by the Karnataka High Court, a judge declined to entertain a woman’s request for ₹6,16,300 in monthly alimony from her ex-husband, questioning the reasonableness of the amount. The judge’s comments and the proceedings have sparked significant online discussion and controversy.
During a court session, a video circulated widely shows the woman’s advocate arguing for a substantial alimony sum to cover the woman’s medical expenses, including treatment for knee pain, physiotherapy, and other related costs. Additionally, the advocate requested ₹50,000 for the woman’s basic needs and ₹60,000 for food. The total monthly amount requested was ₹6,16,300.
The judge, however, found the requested amount to be excessive. “Six lakh, sixteen thousand, three hundred per month? Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” the judge remarked, emphasizing that such a high amount seemed unreasonable for a single individual’s needs. The judge further suggested that if the woman wished to maintain such a high standard of living, she should consider earning it herself rather than relying solely on her ex-husband.
The judge also noted that the woman did not have additional family responsibilities, such as caring for children, which could justify a higher maintenance amount. “Alimony should not be a punishment to the husband,” the judge stated, underscoring that the financial support should be reasonable and not used to enforce a specific lifestyle.
The ruling and the judge’s remarks have received considerable attention on social media. Many users have praised the judge for questioning the validity of the alimony claim and highlighting the importance of reasonable financial demands. One user on X commented, “Once again female judges showing the way with right questions and correct judgments! Hope this happens a lot more often.” Another user expressed hope that the judge’s approach would be recognized and considered for higher judicial positions.
Critics of the alimony request pointed out discrepancies in the claimed expenses, such as the high cost for medical treatment and lifestyle maintenance. The judge’s decision is seen by some as a necessary check on the financial claims in divorce proceedings, aiming to balance the financial obligations fairly.
Sources By Agencies