Bombay High Court: In the interim application filed by a woman seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakhs per month, citing her living expenses and responsibility for the daughter’s upbringing, alleging that the husband was a chronic defaulter and that the amount awarded was unreasonably low compared to the family’s substantial business interests, the Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan*, JJ., held that the wife is entitled to lead a life of dignity and provide her daughter a life of dignity. Accordingly, the Court directed aggregate monthly maintenance of Rs 3,50,000, noting that the husband did not come with clean hands, having suppressed financial strength and made misstatements about being a person of poor means.
Background:
The couple got married in 1997 and lived together in their matrimonial home for 16 years. Since 2013, they were living separately. In 2015, the husband filed for divorce, which was granted by the Family Court in 2023 on the ground of cruelty, with permanent alimony fixed at Rs 50,000 per month. During the proceedings, interim maintenance of the same amount was directed, though the husband was frequently in default of payments. Both parties appealed against the divorce judgment, which was stayed.
Pending disposal of the appeals, the wife filed an interim application seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs 5 lakhs per month. She cited her living expenses and responsibility for the daughter’s upbringing, contending that the husband was a chronic defaulter and that the maintenance awarded was unreasonably low compared to the family’s substantial business interests.
The husband, in his interim application, sought cancellation of maintenance. He claimed that he was without sufficient means to pay, that he had already paid over Rs 21.65 lakhs during litigation, and that his annual income was reduced to around Rs 6 lakhs. He further argued that the family businesses were suffering losses since the Covid-19 pandemic, pointed to a loan advanced to the wife’s uncle, referred to insurance policies for the children, and alleged that the wife was earning through tutoring and a plant nursery business.
Accordingly, the wife sought enhancement of interim maintenance while the husband was seeking cancellation of the same.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the expenses projected by the wife were not prohibitive or exorbitant. On the contrary, going by the standard of living that a child should reasonably expect to have, the Court found the estimation frugal and reasonable, typically falling within the ambit of a frugal professional middle-class mother.
The Court emphasised that the wife is entitled to lead a life of dignity and provide her daughter a life of dignity and therefore entitled to a maintenance amount commensurate with such entitlement. The Court noted that the Family Court did not grant anything separately for the daughter and held that Rs 50,000 per month was hardly a reasonable quantum of maintenance, further observing that on the basis of ready reckoner rates published by the Stamp Duty authorities the husband’s assets were valued at over Rs 1,083 crores, making his sworn statements of having no means resoundingly false and clearly demonstrating dishonesty in his pleadings.
The Court highlighted that financial power funding the couple’s standard of living would be ignored if one looked merely at tax returns structured to depict minimal income. The Court further observed that this was not a case of a short marriage followed by unreasonable demands, and that the legitimacy of expectations for fair and reasonable maintenance could not be undermined.
The Court emphasised that marriage and the payment of maintenance at divorce is not a lending and borrowing transaction. It was further noted that grave and irreparable harm would continue if a reasonable assessment was not made, and that there would be no inconvenience to the husband in paying a slightly larger sum towards the maintenance amounts claimed by the wife.
The Court observed that it was unfair and unjust for the divorced wife to be given maintenance not commensurate with the expenses required for the daughter’s education and upbringing. The Court highlighted that, despite being a man of strong financial means, the husband allowed arrears to accumulate. It was further Court emphasised that bearing in mind the welfare objective under the Hindu Marriage Act, even assuming the findings of the Family Court on divorce were correct, the maintenance awarded was paltry and not in line with principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
The Court noted that the husband did not come with clean hands, having suppressed his financial strength and made misstatements about being a person of poor means. Accordingly, the Court directed that the wife was entitled to an aggregate monthly maintenance of Rs 3,50,000. Thus, the order was modified to this extent as an interim measure, capable of execution during the pendency of the cross appeals.
The Court further directed that maintenance per month for twelve months starting 01-11-2025 was to be remitted within four weeks of the uploading of the judgment. Consequently, the Court held that both interim applications stood disposed of, with no order as to costs.
[Purvi Mukesh Gada v. Mukesh Popatlal Gada, Interim Application No. 16733 of 2023, decided on 10-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: In person
For the Respondent: Rajat Dedhia, Advocates