The Bombay High Court ruled that inflated maintenance cannot be fixed only on the basis of a husband’s high salary. The amount must match the real needs of the wife and children, not a fixed percentage of income.
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court has made it clear that just because a husband earns a high income, it does not automatically mean that a fixed or proportionate part of his salary must be given as inflated maintenance to his wife and children.
The Court said that maintenance must be based on actual needs, standard of living, and surrounding circumstances, and not merely on how much the husband earns.
This observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande while dismissing a plea filed by a woman who had sought monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh each for her two daughters. The case arose from a dispute over interim maintenance granted by the Family Court at Bandra.
The Court noted that the income disclosed by the husband was not disputed by the wife. However, the judge made it clear that income alone cannot be the deciding factor.
The Court observed:
“The amount of income disclosed by the husband is not disputed by the wife. Assuming without admitting, even if the amount of income (Rs 3.98 lakhs per month) disclosed by the husband is more than his actual income, it does not mean that a proportionate part of his income is to be awarded to the wife and children. The maintenance has to be in proportion with the needs of the children”
While examining the records, the High Court noted that the husband was already paying school fees and expenses for extracurricular activities of the children, apart from paying Rs 25,000 per month for each daughter. The Court found that the wife had claimed very high monthly expenses but failed to support them with proper details.
The judge pointed out:
“Though the wife has claimed general monthly expenses incurred by her to be Rs. 3,87,333/-, she has not given any details or break-up of the expenses needed for each month. Thus, claim of the wife has to be appreciated on the background of the admitted income of the husband, i.e., Rs. 3,98,870”
The High Court also took into account the other sources of income available to the husband, along with the expenses already being borne by him for the daughters. These factors were used to assess the standard of living enjoyed by the wife and children. The Court explained that maintenance must be fixed only after considering financial status, income, standard of living, and reasonable needs.
Justice Deshpande observed that the wife, being the primary caregiver, was responsible for raising two growing daughters who were accustomed to a particular lifestyle. However, the Court found the claim of Rs 1 lakh for the two daughters to be exaggerated.
The judge stated:
“Admittedly, the wife, being the primary caregiver, needs to take care of the two daughters of growing age, who are accustomed to particular life-style. But, her claim of Rs. 1 lakh for the two daughters appears to be inflated and not supported by any documents.”
At the same time, the Court also clarified that children’s expenses cannot be left entirely to the discretion of the husband. Even if the claim appeared excessive, the needs of the children had to be reasonably secured.
The judge observed:
“The approximate income disclosed by the husband is Rs.3,98,870, from which only a meagre amount of Rs.50,000 and Rs.25,000, respectively is being paid to the wife and her daughters by interpreting the order passed by the Judge, Family Court. After deducting Rs. 60,000 for his personal expenses as claimed by the husband, it leaves more than Rs. 3 lakhs at his disposal. Considering the list of necessary expenses given by him, Rs. 50,000 per month. collectively to the two daughters also appear to be insufficient.”
Based on this reasoning, the Bombay High Court modified the Family Court’s order. The Court clarified that the husband would have to pay Rs 50,000 each to both daughters, instead of Rs 25,000 each as claimed by the husband. The Court noted that the Family Court had originally ordered Rs 50,000 each, but the husband had interpreted it as a collective amount.
In addition, the High Court enhanced the maintenance payable to the wife from Rs 25,000 per month to Rs 50,000 per month. However, the Court refused to increase the total maintenance to Rs 3.50 lakhs per month as demanded by the wife.
This ruling reinforces an important legal principle: maintenance is meant to meet reasonable needs, not to impose a penalty based on income alone. Courts must balance financial capacity, standard of living, and genuine requirements, while guarding against inflated or unsupported claims.
Laws and Sections Involved – Explained in Simple Terms
| Law / Section | Full Name | Purpose of the Law | How It Was Used in This Case |
| Section 24, HMA | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 | Provides interim maintenance and litigation expenses to a spouse who has no independent income during pendency of matrimonial proceedings | The wife filed an interim maintenance application under this section during the divorce proceedings |
| Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 | HAMA, 1956 | Governs maintenance rights of wife, children, and dependents under Hindu law | The wife filed a separate maintenance petition under this Act for herself and the two daughters |
| Rajnesh vs Neha | Supreme Court Judgment (2021) | Laid down uniform guidelines on maintenance, including disclosure of income and starting date of maintenance | Cited to argue that maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the date of application |
| Parvin Kumar Jain vs Anju Jain | Supreme Court Judgment (2024) | Reaffirmed that relief under Section 24 HMA should be granted from the date of filing | Relied upon by the High Court to correct the Family Court’s error |
| Sau. Pradnya @ Anjali vs Ajay Kukde | Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) | Held that maintenance should normally be granted from date of application unless reasons are recorded | Used to reject the husband’s argument against retrospective maintenance |
Case Summary
- Case Title: MMM vs AAA
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3828 of 2024
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- Bench: Justice Manjusha Deshpande (Single Judge Bench)
- Date Reserved: 05 December 2025
- Date Pronounced: 12 December 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:54818
- Family Court Order Challenged: Order dated 22.08.2023 passed by Judge, Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumbai, below Exhibit 10A in Petition No. A-1899 of 2020
Appearance / Counsels
- For the Wife (Petitioner):
- Advocate Samarth Moray
- Advocate Shivani Shinde
- For the Husband (Respondent):
- Advocate Vikramaditya Deshmukh
- Advocate Priya Chaubey
- Advocate Sapana Rachure
- For the State: Ms. S.S. Kaushik, Additional Public Prosecutor
Core Legal Findings of the Bombay High Court
- The wife did not dispute the husband’s disclosed monthly income of Rs. 3,98,870.
- The Court clarified that even if income appears high, maintenance cannot be fixed as a fixed percentage of salary.
- The wife failed to provide a proper break-up or documentary proof for her claimed monthly expenses of Rs. 3,87,333.
- The husband was already paying school fees, transport, extracurricular costs, and other expenses for the children.
- The Court held that children’s needs must be protected, but exaggerated and unsupported claims cannot be accepted.
- The word “each” used in the Family Court order was interpreted to mean Rs. 50,000 individually for the wife and for each daughter.
- Maintenance was directed to be payable from the date of application, after adjusting amounts already paid under interim consent terms.
Key Takeaways
- High income of a husband does not mean courts will automatically award a fixed percentage of his salary as maintenance. Earnings alone are not a punishment tool.
- Maintenance must be linked to real, reasonable needs of the wife and children, not inflated figures without bills, proof, or expense break-up.
- Courts will closely examine whether the husband is already paying school fees, medical costs, and child-related expenses before increasing maintenance.
- Children’s needs must be protected, but they cannot be used as leverage to extract disproportionate or unjustified amounts from the father.
- This judgment reinforces balance in maintenance law and sends a clear message that financial capacity cannot be misused to turn maintenance into legal extortion.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.