Husband Must Pay ₹50,000 Monthly Maintenance For Wife’s 3 Dogs Too: Mumbai Court

Can a husband be made to bear expenses linked to his estranged wife’s three pet dogs while paying maintenance? A Mumbai court has said pets can add to her financial liability and ordered the husband to pay ₹50,000 every month.

NEW DELHI: A Mumbai magistrate court has directed a businessman to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to his 55-year-old estranged wife, while also taking into account the financial burden of maintaining her three Rottweiler dogs.

Metropolitan Magistrate Komalsing Rajput observed that pets can play an important role in a person’s emotional well-being, particularly after the breakdown of a relationship. The court rejected the husband’s argument that expenses relating to the dogs should not be considered while deciding maintenance.

The couple had been married for around 34 years. The wife approached the court in 2021 under the domestic violence law and sought interim maintenance from her husband.

She claimed that she had no independent source of income, was suffering from health problems and was also taking care of three Rottweiler dogs. According to her, all three dogs were financially dependent on her.

The court noted that the parties were living separately and that the wife was dependent on the husband for her financial needs.

“The fact of separation andnon-arrangement of any means for survival of the applicant (woman) by the respondent (husband) is admitted. It is also admitted that applicant… is solely dependent on the respondent. Her age is also considerable and there are other factors such as illness and pets kept by her, are also accruing financial liability on her,”

The magistrate held that the defence raised by the husband was not sufficient to free him from his maintenance liability.

“These admitted facts clearly constitute economic violence,”

The husband had argued that he did not have the level of income claimed by his wife and that he had suffered losses in his business. However, the court found that no material had been placed before it to establish those business losses.

“Further, even if it is presumed that he has suffered any such losses this fact itself is not enough to disown liability. The parties belonged to good financial background, the maintenance must be granted and that too with a lifestyle and requirements suitable to her,”

The wife told the court that the couple had two daughters, both of whom were married and living abroad. According to her case, differences developed between the husband and wife in 2021 while they were staying in another city.

She alleged that her husband later sent her to Mumbai and had assured her that he would provide maintenance and other basic necessities. She claimed that the assurance was not fulfilled.

“During married life he caused various acts of domestic violence…,”

Through her lawyer, the wife sought ₹70,000 per month as interim maintenance.

The husband disputed her allegations. He denied committing domestic violence and maintained that his wife had left the matrimonial home on her own and that there was no fault on his part.

He also disputed the financial picture presented by the wife and claimed that he had suffered business losses.

Despite these objections, the court awarded the wife ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance.

For husbands facing maintenance proceedings, the order is also a reminder that merely claiming business losses may not be enough. If reduction or denial of maintenance is sought on the basis of financial difficulty, the claimed losses and present financial position may need to be supported by proper documentary evidence.

At the same time, considering pet expenses as part of a spouse’s financial requirements could raise an important question in future matrimonial disputes: how far should one spouse remain financially responsible for lifestyle expenses and personal choices after the parties have separated?

EXPLANATORY TABLE - LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. A husband being made financially answerable even for an estranged wife’s pet expenses shows how far maintenance liability can be stretched against men.
2. Marriage may end emotionally, but for men the financial burden can continue expanding even after separation.
3. Calling lifestyle-linked pet expenses part of maintenance risks turning support into an open-ended obligation rather than need-based relief.
4. Men’s financial hardship is often subjected to strict proof, while additional claims against them can receive a much wider interpretation.
5. This order raises a serious fairness question: where does maintenance end and forced funding of an estranged spouse’s lifestyle begin?