A Bengaluru man who owns a Mercedes-Benz walked into the Karnataka High Court hoping to end his marriage and walk away from a maintenance order he called excessive. He walked out with neither.

The court dismissed his divorce appeal, confirmed the Rs 20,000 monthly maintenance he had been fighting, and pointedly noted that a man who could run a Mercedes-Benz had little ground to call that amount a burden.

The couple had married in February 2009 and have a son together. By the time the husband filed for divorce before the family court, his wife had been living away from the matrimonial home for close to nine years.

A Mercedes, and a maintenance bill he did not want to pay

At the centre of this case was not just a broken marriage. It was also a maintenance order the husband had been contesting, arguing that Rs 20,000 a month for his wife and son was too much.

The High Court did not see it that way. During cross-examination in the original proceedings before the family court, the husband had himself admitted to owning and maintaining a Mercedes-Benz car. He said he was paying instalments on it, but the court found that beside the point.

A person maintaining a Mercedes-Benz, the bench observed, was not someone who could reasonably argue that Rs 20,000 a month was excessive. The challenge to the maintenance order was dismissed outright.

What the husband told the family court

Before the family court, the husband had painted a picture of a wife who had abandoned the marriage without reason. He alleged she had behaved irresponsibly from early on, repeatedly threatened to leave for her parental home, spread rumours about him, and accused him and his mother of making dowry demands.

He said she had eventually stopped all contact, even blocking his phone number, leaving him to reach her only through their son. After nine years of separation and failed attempts at reconciliation, he argued, the marriage was dead in every practical sense and the court should dissolve it on grounds of both cruelty and desertion.

The photographs that changed the case

The wife had a different account entirely, and she came to court with evidence.

She produced photographs sourced from social media showing her husband celebrating a child's birthday and taking part in family functions alongside another woman. She alleged that her husband was in a relationship with this woman and that a child had been born from that relationship. She said this was the real reason she had left, and that she had every right to do so.

The photographs became the turning point. In cross-examination before the family court, the husband first acknowledged that the woman in the pictures was a friend. Later in the same cross-examination, he denied recognising her at all.

The court found that reversal hard to accept. The husband then argued that he had filed a lawsuit against the woman and 42 television channels for circulating the photographs online. The family court rejected that explanation, noting that the images had been uploaded from the woman's own social media account. Filing a case, the court said, was not the same as disproving what the photographs plainly showed.

What else the family court noticed

Beyond the photographs, the family court picked up on something else. The husband's own father had gifted property to the couple's son and had appointed the wife as administrator, not his own son. The father-in-law had also been regularly visiting the wife at her parental home to check on her and the child's welfare.

The court found it difficult to square that picture with the husband's claim that his wife had simply walked out without cause or provocation.

Why the High Court upheld everything

The Karnataka High Court, in its judgment delivered on 10 July 2026, agreed with the family court on every count.

On desertion, the bench held that the law requires the separation to be wilful and without reasonable cause. Here, it found the wife had clear and legitimate grounds for living apart, given what the evidence showed about her husband's conduct and relationship outside the marriage.

Granting a divorce in such a situation, the court said, would amount to rewarding the party at fault. It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the maintenance order, directing the husband to continue paying Rs 20,000 every month without fail.

The wife was also given the right to initiate recovery proceedings if payments stopped. The family court has separately been directed to dispose of the pending maintenance case as quickly as possible.