Kurepa Hypothesis says there is a Kurepa tree, which is a $\omega\_1$-tree has at least $\omega\_2$ many branches.
It is known that beginning from a model with an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$, after collapes $\kappa$ to $\omega\_2$ using the Levy collape, then in the generic extension, Kurepa Hypothesis fails.
In above generic extension, $\omega\_2$ is equal to $\kappa$ and by a counting argument for nice names, $2^{\omega\_1}=\omega\_2$. My question is that "is it consistent that Kurepa Hypothesis fails and $2^{\omega\_1}>\omega\_2$?"
(The reason I think this question: The biggest possible value of the number of branches is $2^{\omega\_1}$, so in the environment of $2^{\omega\_1}=\omega\_2$, it is most difficult for the living of a Kurepa tree. So I want to know whether this requiement is necessary.)



On the independence of the Kurepa Hypothesis
The answer is yes, and merely forcing over your model to add additional subsets of $\omega\_1$ will pump up the value of $2^{\omega\_1}$, while not creating Kurepa trees. 


Specifically, let us start in $V$, where $\kappa$ is an inaccessible cardinal, and suppose also that the GCH holds. You mentioned the result of Silver, which shows that in the forcing extension obtained via the Levy collapse making $\kappa=\omega\_2$, there are no Kurepa trees. I propose simply to add more subsets to $\omega\_1$ over this model, and claim that still no Kurepa trees will be created. 


To see this, consider the product forcing $P\times Q$, where $P=\text{Coll}(\omega\_1,\lt\kappa)$ is the relevant Levy collapse, and $Q=\text{Add}(\omega\_1,\theta)$ is the forcing to add $\theta$ many Cohen subsets of $\omega\_1$. Suppose that $V[G][H]$ is $V$-generic for this forcing. 
Note that because the Levy collapse is countably closed, the forcing $Q$ is $\text{Add}(\omega\_1,\theta)$ in both $V$ and in $V[G]$. In particular, the $Q$ forcing is countably closed in $V[G]$ and $\kappa$-c.c. there, so cardinals $\kappa$ and above are all preserved.


By the result of Silver, we know that there are no Kurepa trees in $V[G]$, since this is the Levy collapse you mentioned. 


Next, I claim that no $\omega\_1$-tree $T$ in $V[G]$ becomes Kurepa in $V[G][H]$. This is because countably closed forcing cannot add any new branches to an $\omega\_1$ tree in the ground model. If we had a name for a new branch $\dot b$, then we could decide this name in various incompatible ways, and get a level of $T$ that must have continuum many elements on it, contrary to $T$ being an $\omega\_1$ tree. (And this observation was critical to Silver's argument.)


Suppose that there is a Kurepa tree $T$ in $V[G][H]$, created by the $H$ forcing over $V[G]$. Since $T$ has size $\omega\_1$ and the $Q$ forcing is $\omega\_2$-c.c., it follows that $T$ exists in $V[G][H|A]$ for some subset $A\subset \theta$ of size $\omega\_1$. We may rearrange the forcing and assume without loss that $T\in V[G][H|\omega\_1]$ is added by the first $\omega\_1$ many stages of the forcing. Indeed, since adding $\omega\_1$ many subsets to $\omega\_1$ is the same as adding just one, we may assume that $T\in V[G][H\_0]$, where $H\_0$ is the first subset to $\omega\_1$ added by $H$. What is more, the rest of the $H$ forcing remains countably closed over this model, and therefore adds no new branches to $T$ that are not already in $V[G][H\_0]$. Thus, all the branches of $T$ of $V[G][H]$ are in $V[G][H\_0]$. But now, the point is that doing the Levy collapse and then adding one subset of $\omega\_1$ is isomorphic to just doing the Levy collapse. The later forcing is absorbed by the Levy collapse. (I can explain this if you like.) Thus, $V[G][H\_0]=V[G^\ast]$ for some $V$-generic filter $G^\ast\subset P$. In particular, $T$ is not Kurepa there. So $T$ does not have $\omega\_2$ many branches there, and hence does not have $\omega\_2$ many branches in $V[G][H]$. So the model $V[G][H]$ has no Kurepa trees, yet $2^{\omega\_1}\geq\theta$ there, as desired. 


