Maintenance Case | Wife Owns ₹1.7 Crore Flat and 2 Luxury Cars — Yet Man Must Pay ₹2.5 Lakh Every Month: Madras High Court

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld an order directing a man to pay ₹1 lakh every month as maintenance to a woman who owned a flat purchased for ₹1.7 crore and two luxury cars.

The Court held that ownership of expensive assets by itself was not enough to deny maintenance when there was no evidence showing that the woman had a regular source of income.

Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the woman admittedly owned the ₹1.7 crore flat and two luxury cars. However, according to the evidence before the Court, she did not have a regular income after the birth of the couple's child.

Read Also:- Maintenance Case: How To Summon Wife’s Salary, ITR, Bank & Employment Records | Husband’s Legal Guide 2026

The man had argued that considering her valuable property and luxury cars, she had sufficient financial means and should not be granted such substantial monthly maintenance. However, the Court noted that he had failed to produce evidence establishing that she had a regular source of income.

The Court observed:

“Considering the status of the parties and the fact that the 1st respondent had established that she had no regular source of income, the maintenance quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- is reasonable and no interference is called for,"

The case arose after the man challenged a family court order directing him to pay ₹1 lakh per month to the woman, who claimed to be his wife, and another ₹1.5 lakh per month for their minor son.

This meant that the total monthly maintenance liability under the order stood at ₹2.5 lakh.

According to the woman, she met the petitioner in 2014 while she was working as a model. She claimed that the man initially introduced himself as a film producer and later told her that he was running an educational institution.

Read Also:- How To Prove Wife’s Income, Employment & Earning Capacity In A Maintenance Case

She said she initially refused his proposal because he was already married. According to her case, the man later represented that he had divorced his wife and allegedly showed her a copy of a divorce order.

The woman claimed that they subsequently married at a temple in Uthiramerur in January 2020. A son was born to them in March 2021. She alleged that from June 2022, the man stopped visiting her and the child.

The man disputed her version and denied that any marriage had taken place. He also argued that the woman was aware that he was already married.

Apart from questioning the alleged marriage, he challenged her need for maintenance on financial grounds. He specifically relied upon the fact that she owned a property worth ₹1.7 crore and two luxury cars.

Despite these financial assets, the family court awarded ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month to the minor child.

The family court found that the man had misled the woman into believing that he had obtained a divorce and held that he could not take advantage of his own wrong.

The Madras High Court affirmed these findings.

Another important factor considered in the case was the man's income. The family court had assessed his monthly income at ₹10 lakh. This finding was not disputed before the High Court.

Read Also:- Steps/Procedure in Maintenance Case (125 CrPC) in India

The High Court also dealt with the man's argument that the woman had failed to strictly establish that she was legally married to him and, therefore, could not claim maintenance as his wife.

The Court rejected this contention.

Justice Mohan observed that proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have a social-welfare purpose. Therefore, the standard required to establish marriage in such proceedings is different from the strict standard of proof applicable in criminal proceedings concerning an offence such as bigamy.

The Court said:

"The standard of proof to establish the marriage in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be the same as that is required to prove the offence of bigamy ... in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not essential and if it is shown that the relationship was continuous and for a sufficiently long time, the marriage can be presumed,"

For reaching its conclusion, the High Court also considered documents and other material concerning the relationship between the parties.

The child's birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs were relied upon to conclude that the relationship had continued for a sufficiently long period and that the petitioner had treated the woman as his wife.

Thus, even though the man disputed the marriage and highlighted the woman's ownership of a ₹1.7 crore flat and two luxury cars, neither argument was sufficient to overturn the maintenance order.

Read Also:- Husband Has Blood Cancer, Still Needs To Travel 370 km Regularly For Wife’s Maintenance Case: Madras HC Transfers Case

The crucial distinction made by the Court was between owning valuable assets and having a regular source of income. Since the woman was found to have no regular income, and considering the financial status of the parties, the Court found ₹1 lakh per month maintenance to be reasonable.

At the same time, the ruling shows the comparatively lower evidentiary threshold applicable to establishing a marital relationship in maintenance proceedings. A claimant may not be required to prove the marriage with the same strictness applicable in a prosecution for bigamy if evidence shows a continuous relationship over a sufficiently long period.

Read Also:- Law Becoming A Weapon. Man Dragged Without Due Process: Madras High Court Saves Husband From Unlawful Arrest In Maintenance Case

The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the man's revision petition and confirmed the family court order requiring payment of ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month for their minor son.

LAWS & SECTIONS EXPLAINED

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ₹1.7 crore flat + 2 luxury cars were not enough to defeat her maintenance claim because she was found to have no regular income.
• Man's liability: ₹2.5 lakh every month — ₹1 lakh for the woman and ₹1.5 lakh for the child.
• Strict proof of marriage was held unnecessary — long and continuous cohabitation can support a presumption of marriage for maintenance proceedings.
• The man's failure to lead contrary evidence proved costly — the Court repeatedly noted that he had not produced evidence to counter her case.
• A major lesson for men fighting maintenance cases: allegations and financial claims cannot simply be denied. Document your case, disclose the relevant facts, and lead evidence—or the evidentiary record may decide the case against you.

Read Also:- Maintenance u/s HMA 24 ends when the Main case ends