Can a Financially Independent Wife earning more than Husband seek Interim Maintenance merely because Cost of living is high.Bombay High Court clarified the Scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
BOMBAY:The Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman who earns substantially more than her husband and is financially independent cannot claim interim maintenance only because she lives in a country where the cost of living is high. The Court rejected the plea of a US-based woman who had sought ₹1 lakh per month from her former husband during the pendency of her appeal.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the woman’s interim application challenging a Family Court order. While granting divorce, the Family Court had directed the husband to pay only ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses. The Family Court had also granted custody of the elder son to the husband, while the younger son continued to stay with the mother.
The Court noted that the woman had been living in the United States since 2011. She holds professional qualifications including BCA, MCA, PMP and SAFe Certifications and is currently employed with Mark Infotech Inc., New Jersey, earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700.
On the other hand, the husband comes from a non-technical background and has only completed a basic SAP course. He currently works in the IT sector, but the Court observed that due to rising competition and increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), he faces constant uncertainty about his job. The Court also noted that he is financially supporting the elder son’s education in Australia while also taking care of his elderly parents and his second wife, whom he married after the divorce.
The woman argued that she was single-handedly bearing the expenses of the younger son and had no surplus income left because of her financial commitments.
The Court, however, did not accept this argument and observed:
“Although she has stated that there is no disposable surplus income due to various expenses which are required to be incurred by her, we do not find any favour in her reason for claiming interim maintenance from the husband. Her only excuse is that she is living under extreme financial strain due to exorbitant cost of living abroad. In our view, this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal,”
The Bench further observed that the woman is a qualified professional who has been living abroad for nearly 15 years and has successfully raised two children. Based on the documents placed before the Court, it found that she has more than sufficient income to support herself. The judges also noted that the Family Court had already refused to grant her permanent alimony, and that decision is still under challenge before the High Court.
Explaining the legal position, the Court referred to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for interim maintenance during matrimonial proceedings only when the applicant does not have sufficient independent income to support themselves or meet litigation expenses. The provision applies equally to both the husband and the wife, depending on who is financially weaker. The Court observed that this case did not satisfy those conditions, highlighting that maintenance is based on financial need rather than gender alone.
The Bench explained:
“The very object of Section 24 is that, the financially weaker party should be able to defend the proceedings ably and is not left in a vulnerable financial position throughout the proceedings. In view of the scope of Section 24, in our view, the Applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of her prayer in the Application,”
With these observations, the Bombay High Court dismissed the woman’s application seeking interim maintenance.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION
| Law or provision | Legal meaning | Application in this case |
| Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows either the wife or the husband to seek maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings when the applicant has no independent income sufficient for personal support and legal expenses. | The wife sought ₹1 lakh per month while her Family Court appeal was pending. The High Court found that her income of USD 8,700 per month was sufficient and that she had not shown financial dependence warranting interim maintenance. |
| Maintenance pendente lite | Temporary financial support payable during the pendency of matrimonial litigation. It is not the same as final or permanent alimony. | The application concerned temporary maintenance during the pending appeal, not a final determination of permanent alimony. |
| Expenses of proceedings under Section 24 | The Court may direct one spouse to bear reasonable litigation expenses when the other spouse lacks sufficient resources to conduct the case. | The Family Court had already ordered the husband to pay ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses, despite rejecting the broader maintenance claim. |
| Permanent alimony | Long-term financial relief ordinarily considered at or after the final disposal of matrimonial proceedings. It is legally distinct from interim maintenance. | The Family Court had refused permanent alimony while granting divorce. The challenge to that final judgment remained pending before the High Court. |
| Family Court Appeal | An appellate proceeding challenging a Family Court’s judgment or order before the competent High Court. | The wife’s main appeal against the divorce judgment and refusal of permanent alimony was yet to be finally decided. The dismissed application was only an interim request filed during that appeal. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Particulars |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Jurisdiction | Appellate Side |
| Case Title | RPKS vs. PKJS |
| Date of Order | 17 July 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande |
| Applicant | Former wife residing and working in the United States |
| Respondent | Former husband working in the IT sector |
| Interim Application No. | 3958 of 2025 |
COUNSELS APPEARED
| Party | Counsel |
| For the Applicant/Wife | Ms. Medha Jondhale along with Mr. Anand Jondhale and Rajnandini Jondhale |
| For the Respondent/Husband | Mr. Abhijit Sarwate |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Section 24 is meant to protect the financially weaker spouse, not reward a claim merely because it is filed by a wife.
- A woman earning USD 8,700 per month cannot shift the burden of her foreign lifestyle onto her former husband.
- The Court looked beyond the usual one-sided narrative and considered the husband’s real liabilities, including his son, elderly parents and present family.
- Maintenance cannot become a tool to financially punish a man even after the marriage has ended.
- The judgment sends a clear message: a husband is not a permanent ATM, and every maintenance claim must pass the test of genuine need, comparative income and fairness.
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.
