Bombay High Court: A writ petition was filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the Family Court’s order directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to his wife-the respondent during the pendency of their divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), where he contended that the wife was already employed and therefore not entitled to maintenance. A Single Judge Bench of Manjusha Deshpande, J., held that there was a huge disparity in the income of the husband and wife, which could not be compared, and thus, the wife was certainly entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation.
Background:
The parties married on 28-11-2012 and the husband had alleged that due to the wife’s tantrums and ill-treatment, their relationship became strained, and the wife left the matrimonial home to live with her parents in May 2015. Despite the husband buying a new flat as per the wife’s preference, the issues continued. The husband, thus, filed a petition for divorce on 7-6-2019 under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) HMA in the Family Court.
Consecutively, the wife filed an interim application for maintenance on 29-9-2021, which was allowed by the Family Court on 24-8-2023, awarding her Rs 15,000 per month from 1-10-2022 until the final disposal of the petition.
The husband challenged the maintenance order on the ground that the wife was already employed as an Assistant Teacher and was earning an amount of Rs 21,820 per month. He further claimed that she earned Rs 2,00,000 per annum from tuition classes, along with interest income from fixed deposits, totalling a monthly income of about Rs 40,000. He also disclosed that his income by way of gross salary was Rs 65,774 and salary in hand was Rs 57,935. Additionally, his monthly expenses came to Rs 54,000 per month, since he was residing with his old parents who needed to be looked after and maintained by him.
The counsel for the wife submitted that the husband had suppressed material facts/details regarding his employment, including salary particulars, and other benefits such as privileges, incentives and increments received from the company where he was employed. It was further argued that the husband had potential financial resources, inclusive of a substantial income and savings, and despite possessing the financial capacity he was avoiding his obligation to deprive the wife from her legal dues for which she was entitled as per the provisions of law. Moreover, the present petition was also filed only with an intention to harass the wife, and he was presenting distorted facts before this Court to gain sympathy and thereby get the order impugned modified.
The wife also highlighted that she resided with her parents, who in turn resided with her brother’s family and in her meagre income, it was impossible for her to carve out expenses towards rent if she decided to reside separately. She contended that she had not suppressed any facts from the Court and has disclosed her true and correct income, which was insufficient for her needs since her salary was exhausted in transportation and daily food etc., hence she was in dire need of maintenance.
The wife further presented the husband’s salary slips for January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024, disclosing incomes of Rs 66,713, Rs 68,962, and Rs 1,41,532, respectively. It was further submitted in the affidavit that, despite the husband’s claim that his parents were dependent on him, his father’s pension of Rs 28,000 indicated that they were not financially dependent on the husband and given that the he resided in a posh flat, it could not reasonably be contended that he was incapable of bearing the monthly maintenance expense of Rs 15,000. Considering the status of the husband and his standard of living, the wife was entitled to the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court and, therefore, the impugned order did not deserve any interference.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court held that the claim of the husband had been falsified by the salary slips submitted by the wife which disclosed his net pay. The Court noted that though the husband claimed that his parents were dependent on him, his own affidavit disclosed that his father drew a pension per month which meant his parents were not financially dependent on him and in fact they must be contributing to the monthly maintenance of the family.
The Court found substance in the submission that the husband had not disclosed his true income in the affidavit of assets and liabilities. Additionally, the salary slips placed on record disclosed his income above Rs 1,00,000 and wife’s income to be Rs 18,000 per month. Though it was claimed by the husband that the wife had an additional income from the interest of the fixed deposits, the interest was negligible. The Court stated that the income from tuition classes could not be said to be a permanent source of income and there was a huge disparity in the income of the husband and the wife, which could not be compared.
The Court emphasised that the wife was entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation and while determining the quantum of maintenance, the factors that were required to be taken into consideration were- income of the respective party’s age; their responsibilities; their reasonable needs; necessities and income derived from other sources, if any.
The Court relied on Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, (2025) 2 SCC 227, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines for fixing the amount of maintenance and provided the following factors to be looked into while granting maintenance:
- Status of the parties, social and financial.
- Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.
- Parties’ individual qualifications and employment statuses.
- Independent income or assets owned by the applicant.
- Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
- Any employment sacrifices made for responsibilities.
- Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
-
Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
The Court stated that the above-mentioned factors were laid down based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724. The Court applied the aforementioned factors to the facts of the present case, and concluded that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the husband’s income, as her own earnings were insufficient to support her livelihood.
The Court held that though the wife was earning, the said income was not sufficient for her own maintenance, and she could not stay with her parents indefinitely as it would cause inconvenience and hardship to all of them. The Court opined that the husband’s income was far more than the wife with no financial responsibilities on him and even if he had certain expenses that were necessary for the maintenance of himself and the family members whom he was obliged to maintain, the amount that remained was sufficient enough to enable him to support the wife as per the order passed by the Family Court.
The Court emphasized that merely because the wife was earning, she could not be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The Court found no merit in the contention that the maintenance award was unreasonable or extreme, and therefore, dismissed the petition.
[X v. Y, Writ Petition No. 16275 of 2023, decided on 18-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Shashipal Shankar
For the Respondent: S.S. Dube a/w Nagendra Dube
