The Bombay High Court upheld a Family Court’s order directing a husband to pay ₹15,000/month interim maintenance to his estranged wife, despite her own income and the husband’s claim of financial burden. The court found the wife’s earnings insufficient to maintain the lifestyle she had in the matrimonial home.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The husband (petitioner) and wife (respondent) married in November 2012.
- Since May 2015, the wife began living with her parents.
- The husband filed for divorce in 2019 citing cruelty and desertion.
- The wife sought interim maintenance in 2021.
- In August 2023, the Family Court granted her ₹15,000/month maintenance.
- The husband challenged this order in the Bombay High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) – Hindu Marriage Act (Grounds for divorce: cruelty and desertion).
- Section 24 – Hindu Marriage Act (Interim maintenance and litigation expenses).
Arguments by Petitioner (Husband)
- The wife is employed as a teacher, earning ₹21,820/month (net: ₹19,820).
- She earns an additional ₹2 lakh/year from tuition and interest income.
- His in-hand income is ₹57,935/month; his monthly household expenses are ₹54,000.
- Claims financial responsibility towards aged, dependent parents.
Arguments by Respondent (Wife)
- Contends the husband earns significantly more—between ₹1.17L and ₹1.51L/month as per salary slips.
- She resides with her brother and parents, lacks independent housing.
- Claims most of her earnings are spent on transport and food.
- Accuses husband of hiding income and using litigation to harass her.
Court’s Observations
- Found that the husband had not disclosed his true income; actual earnings exceeded ₹1 lakh/month.
- His parents are not fully dependent, as the father receives a pension of ₹28,000.
- Noted the disparity in income and that the wife’s earnings are not enough for self-sufficiency.
- Cited Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain and Rajnesh v. Neha, reaffirming that maintenance must reflect both economic disparity and standard of living.
- Dismissed the argument that her earnings or shared living arrangement were sufficient.
Conclusion:
The High Court found no merit in interfering with the Family Court’s decision. The husband’s financial capacity outweighed his claims of burden, and ₹15,000/month was held to be a reasonable amount for the wife’s maintenance. The writ petition was dismissed.
Comments from the author of this website
This judgment brings out a few concerns. Even when a wife has a stable job, earning around ₹20,000–₹40,000/month, the court didn’t find it sufficient for her own maintenance. The husband’s documented expenses and financial responsibilities, including caring for aged parents, were not accepted as valid grounds to reduce or cancel maintenance.
Also, despite discrepancies in salary data, the husband’s current income was considered at its peak, while the wife’s potential tuition income and fixed deposit interest were downplayed. There’s a growing concern that even financially independent women may be awarded maintenance, leading to undue burdens on husbands, especially in cases where the marriage has long since broken down and both parties are able to support themselves.
This reinforces the need for clearer, more balanced guidelines on interim maintenance, especially when both spouses are working.
Final Thoughts
The judgment underscores a continuing tension in Indian family law—balancing financial fairness with gender-protective provisions. While it’s crucial to protect genuinely vulnerable spouses, courts must also evolve in recognizing economic agency in women and real-life financial strains on men, especially when there are no children or dependent family members on the wife’s side.
As more women enter the workforce and attain financial stability, the courts may need to redefine what constitutes “inability to maintain oneself” and shift from standard assumptions to nuanced, case-specific assessments. For now, men navigating matrimonial disputes must remain vigilant in presenting clear, consistent financial documentation—and must also brace for outcomes that may not always reflect mutual responsibility.
Read Complete Judgement Here