Madras High Court: In a Civil Revision Petition initiated by the petitioner-husband, challenging an order of the Family Court, which had directed payment of interim maintenance to his “affluent” respondent-wife and minor son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), a Single Judge Bench of P. B. Balaji, J., while partly allowing the revision, held that the wife did not require any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
The husband had alleged that the wife was affluent and the Family Court had mechanically passed the order without considering the pleadings in the maintenance application. The High Court emphasised that it could not sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the wife, which was wholly unnecessary considering the substantial income that had accrued to the respondent by way of dividends and her ownership of valuable immovable properties.
Background:
The wife filed an application in 2021 seeking interim maintenance for herself and her son under Section 24 of HMA. The husband agreed to meet educational expenses, which was not challenged. The revision challenged only the order, directing payment of Rs 30,000 per month to the wife and minor son.
The husband submitted that the wife was financially self-sufficient and affluent, and there was no necessity to pay interim maintenance to her. He did not challenge maintenance to the son and stated it was being paid without default. He argued the Family Court passed a mechanical order without appreciating pleadings and evidence, and that Section 24 of HMA aimed to ensure basic sustenance and litigation expenses.
He relied on dividends received by the wife as Director of Roentgen Scan World (P) Ltd. and her approach to National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) seeking restraint on dividend release, alleging malafide conduct. He stated the wife acquired properties worth several crores and settled property in her favour during proceedings.
The wife stated dividends were used for the son’s education, and there was no regular income from the Scan Centre. She disclosed ownership of 32 cents of land in Thiruporur and denied concealment. Her income tax returns showed no income from the Scan Centre between 2020 and 2022.
Regarding property settlement, the wife stated it originally belonged to the wife’s mother and was settled in her father’s name, the ostensible owner. The husband’s claim of no investment was refuted with bank statements showing Rs 48 lakhs invested in April 2019 and Rs 20 lakhs in Scan Point. The wife further stated the husband earned Rs 3,80,000 from Scan World and Rs 1,62,602 from the Government, and the Family Court’s order of Rs 30,000 maintenance was justified. She, thus prayed for dismissal of the revision.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs 30,000 each to the wife and the son, since the husband had not challenged the award of maintenance to his son and also the order directing payment of NEET coaching fees of approximately Rs 2.77 lakhs was also not challenged and had already been paid, the Court emphasised that the husband had no objection to meeting reasonable expenses for his son, and therefore, the order in the interim application in 2021 and the award of Rs 30,000 to the son were not challenged. Only the award of Rs 30,000 to the wife was under challenge.
The Court highlighted that interim maintenance aimed to ensure the wife had sufficient income for a comfortable lifestyle as in the matrimonial home. However, the Court noted that the wife was a Director of Roentgen Scan World (P) Ltd. and a Doctor, receiving regular dividends since February 2016. The statement dated 30-06-2025 showed she was paid Rs 15,18,750 in 2021—2022, Rs 16,20,000 in 2022—2023, and Rs 16,20,000 in 2023—2024, all by way of RTGS transactions. The Court further observed that the wife confirmed receipt of these amounts but contended they were used for the son’s educational expenses and claimed entitlement to interim maintenance despite the dividend income.
The Court emphasised that without consulting the husband, the son was admitted into an institution with sky high fees, and for such arbitrary decisions, the husband could not be mulcted with liability. It was seen that the wife had properties in her name, and one property settled in her favour by her mother was re-transferred to her father pending proceedings. The explanation that the father was the ostensible owner did not appear bonafide, as the settlement appeared intended to counter the husband’s objection that the wife was affluent and owned valuable immovable properties. The wife also had landed property in Thiruporur, where property prices had risen considerably.
The Court observed that the wife had received substantial monies for the last three financial years, which was not in dispute. The object of Section 24 of HMA was only to provide interim maintenance for a comfortable lifestyle. The Court did not believe the wife lacked sufficient income warranting further monies from the petitioner. The husband had fairly stated willingness to meet educational expenses of his son and complied with the interim order of 2021. He had accepted the Rs 30,000 maintenance to the son and had not challenged it. The Court emphasised it could not sustain the Family Court’s order awarding interim maintenance to the wife, which was unnecessary given her substantial dividend income and ownership of valuable immovable properties.
The Court referred to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it was held that there is no straight jacket formula for fixing maintenance and the Court has to waive the status of parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, their education qualifications, any independent source of income accruing to the wife and whether such income would be sufficient to enable the wife to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home.
The Court emphasised it did not find that the wife required further interim maintenance, considering her immovable properties and substantial dividend income. The Court observed that the Family Court had already awarded Rs 30,000 for the minor son, which was not challenged, and the husband had paid Rs 30,000 along with Rs 2,77,000. The Court further noted the Family Court focused only on the son’s requirement and, without reasons or discussion on the wife’s income and properties, awarded Rs 30,000 to the wife. The Court, thus was inclined to interfere with that order.
The Court, therefore, partly allowed the petition and set aside the Family Court’s order to the extent it related to the wife.
[X v. Y, CRP. No. 2590 of 2025, decided on 22-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel, S. Karpagapriya
For the Respondent: J. James
