The Bombay High Court ruled that a financially independent working wife cannot claim interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Court ordered that child maintenance must be paid from the date of application, not from the date of order.
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court clearly held that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not automatic and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a working wife who is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself.
The Court refused to interfere with the Family Court’s decision denying interim maintenance to the wife, while partly modifying the order only with respect to the minor child. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that the purpose of Section 24 is to support a spouse who genuinely lacks sufficient means to sustain herself during matrimonial proceedings and not to provide additional financial benefit to a spouse who is already earning adequately.
The matter was decided by a single judge bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande while dealing with a writ petition filed by the wife under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The wife had challenged the Family Court order which denied her interim maintenance but granted Rs.15,000 per month to the minor daughter.
While the High Court upheld the refusal of maintenance to the wife, it modified the order to direct that the maintenance awarded to the daughter would be payable from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of the order.
The parties were married in December 2010 as per Hindu rites and customs, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock in 2014. Due to matrimonial disputes, the wife approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Along with the divorce petition, she filed an interim application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming Rs.25,000 per month for herself and Rs.25,000 per month for the child. She also sought Rs.20,000 per month towards rent and Rs.2 lakh towards litigation expenses.
The Family Court, after examining the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties, refused to grant interim maintenance to the wife but awarded Rs.15,000 per month to the minor daughter from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this decision, the wife approached the Bombay High Court.
Before the High Court, the wife argued that the Family Court had wrongly denied her interim maintenance by drawing adverse inferences from her bank statements and relying on isolated salary entries.
She contended that the husband had suppressed his real income, resigned from his job to avoid maintenance liability, and failed to follow the mandatory disclosure guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. It was further argued that even a working wife is entitled to interim maintenance and that the maintenance awarded to the child should have been granted from the date of application.
The husband opposed the writ petition by submitting that the scope of interference under Article 227 is very limited and that the Family Court had passed a reasoned and well-considered order based on the material on record. He submitted that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires the applicant to first prove that she does not have sufficient means to maintain herself, which the wife had failed to establish in the present case.
The High Court agreed with the husband’s submissions on this issue. The Court noted that the wife was employed as a Deputy Manager in a reputed bank and had herself disclosed a monthly salary of Rs.28,032 in her affidavit of assets and liabilities. The Court further observed that her bank statements showed additional income from trading, mutual funds, dividends, and other financial instruments, with substantial amounts reflected in her demat and bank accounts.
The Court found that the Family Court was justified in doubting the wife’s claim that her income had reduced over time. It was noted that there was a salary credit of Rs.61,596 in 2018 while she was working in the same organisation, which contradicted her claim of reduced earnings. The High Court held that it was not believable that her income could have declined so sharply over the years, and therefore, the adverse inference drawn by the Family Court was proper and reasonable.
Emphasising the legal requirements of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court reiterated that interim maintenance can be granted only when two conditions are satisfied. First, the applicant must show that she lacks sufficient means to maintain herself, and second, the non-applicant must have sufficient income to support the applicant.
In the present case, the wife failed to discharge the primary burden of proving her inability to maintain herself, considering her education, employment, and multiple sources of income.
The Court also upheld the refusal to grant amounts towards alternate accommodation and litigation expenses. It observed that where a wife is financially independent and gainfully employed in a reputed organisation, such reliefs cannot be claimed as a matter of course under Section 24.
On the issue of maintenance for the minor daughter, the High Court agreed with the Family Court’s assessment of the child’s expenses and held that fixing the father’s contribution at Rs.15,000 per month was reasonable. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which lays down that when both parents are earning, expenses relating to the child must be shared proportionately between them.
However, the High Court found an error in the Family Court’s direction that maintenance to the child would be payable from the date of the order. The Court held that as per the settled law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, maintenance to a dependent child should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application. The Court observed that delay in deciding maintenance applications, which often runs into several years, should not prejudice the claimant.
In the present case, there was a delay of nearly four years between the filing of the interim application and its final disposal. Considering this, the High Court modified the Family Court’s order to the limited extent of directing that the maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month awarded to the daughter shall be payable from the date of filing of the application.
Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed. The Bombay High Court affirmed the denial of interim maintenance, rent, and litigation expenses to the wife, while directing the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the minor daughter from the date of the application, thereby striking a balance between financial capacity, statutory requirements, and the welfare of the child.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Explanation | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Provides for interim maintenance and litigation expenses to a spouse who has no sufficient independent income during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings | The Court held that interim maintenance is not automatic. The wife must prove lack of sufficient means. Since the wife was earning and had multiple income sources, she was held not entitled |
| Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows divorce on the ground of cruelty | The wife filed the main divorce petition under this provision, which formed the basis for seeking interim maintenance |
| Article 227, Constitution of India | Gives the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts | The writ petition was filed under Article 227. The High Court reiterated that interference is limited and only possible in cases of perversity or serious legal error |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance, disclosure of income, and date from which maintenance should be granted | Relied upon for two purposes: deciding proportional sharing of child expenses when both parents earn, and holding that child maintenance should be granted from the date of application |
| Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities | Mandatory financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings as per Supreme Court guidelines | Both parties filed affidavits. The wife’s disclosures showed employment, salary, trading income, mutual funds, and demat holdings, weakening her claim of financial incapacity |
Case Summary
| Particular | Details |
| Case Title | Deepti Mohan Das vs Avinash Krishnamurthy |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay |
| Jurisdiction | Civil Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 3507 of 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | 2025:BHC-AS:54690 |
| Date Reserved | 28 November 2025 |
| Date Pronounced | 09 December 2025 |
| Judge / Bench | Justice Manjusha Deshpande |
| Petitioner | Deepti Mohan Das (Wife) |
| Respondent | Avinash Krishnamurthy (Husband) |
| Counsel for Petitioner | Hemal Ganatra & Khushbu Shah i/b. Usha Tanna |
| Counsel for Respondent | Atharva Dandekar, Pratik Amin, Pratik Poojary, Harsh Agarwal i/b. Pratik Amin Associates |
| Respondent Appearance | Avinash Krishnamurthy appeared in person |
| Lower Court | Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai |
| Impugned Order Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Marriage Date | 16 December 2010 |
| Child | Daughter born on 08 May 2014 |
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance is not a reward for marriage. A financially independent, working wife cannot demand interim maintenance as a default entitlement.
- Section 24 HMA is need-based, not gender-based. The wife must first prove inability to maintain herself before seeking support from the husband.
- Courts will scrutinize real income, not claims. Bank statements, investments, demat accounts, and trading income can expose false poverty narratives.
- Child support is a shared responsibility. When both parents earn, expenses must be divided proportionately, not pushed entirely onto the father. · Maintenance laws exist to prevent destitution, not to penalize men. Financial independence of the claimant is a decisive legal barrier against misuse.
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.