Bombay High Court: In a case deciding whether the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was adequate, and whether it should be payable from the date of the application or only from the date of the order, a Single Judge Bench of Manjusha Deshpande, J., held that the maintenance awarded was insufficient and clarified that the word ‘each’ in the operative order must be interpreted to mean that the wife and both daughters are individually entitled to Rs 50,000 per month. The Court also held that maintenance must be awarded from the date of the application, not from the date of the order.
The Court further stated that the amount of maintenance should be in proportion to children’s needs and not dependent upon a proportional division of the husband’s income.
Background:
The petitioner (‘wife’) and the respondent (‘husband’) got married on 11-04-2014 and had two minor children. The wife was a home maker while the husband helped his father manage their family business. The husband filed for divorce, and the wife also filed a maintenance petition. During the pendency of maintenance petition, she also filed an interim maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) in the divorce petition filed by the husband. An interim Consent Terms were entered, fixing maintenance at Rs 20,000 per month for the wife and her two daughters. Later, the Family Court partly allowed the application of interim maintenance, directing payment of Rs 50,000 per month each to the wife and the two daughters, but only from the date of the order i.e. 22-08-2023. This order was challenged by the wife.
The wife’s counsel submitted that she did not have any independent source of income to maintain herself and their two daughters. However, the husband came from a wealthy background with substantial income and assets, and he had suppressed the complete details of his income. It was contended that the lifestyle enjoyed by the wife and her daughters warranted maintenance of Rs 3.5 lakh per month, proportionate to the husband’s income, and thus she wanted Rs 1 lakh per month each for the two daughters. It was also submitted that the ‘Family Trust’, of which the wife was also one of the beneficiaries, was dissolved on 30-11-2018, and the husband was the sole beneficiary, which he did not disclose.
Further, it was claimed that the wife was filing ITRs and her share was of 35 lakhs, but she had no knowledge about her shareholding and even the ITRs were filed in her name by the husband. It was also submitted that, even while passing the order, there was no clarity regarding the amount of maintenance awarded to each of the daughters and the word ‘each’ was to be interpreted to mean Rs 50,000 for the two daughters individually, but the interpretation given to was ‘Rs 50,000 p.m. is awarded together for the two daughters’. The impugned order was also challenged on the ground that the Family Court had awarded maintenance from the date of passing of the order.
On the other hand, the husband’s counsel submitted that he was already bearing household expenses, school fees, and other necessities of the children, in addition to paying the ordered maintenance. He argued that the Family Court had rightly awarded maintenance from the date of the order, considering the interim arrangement via Consent Terms was already in place. He further contended that the word ‘each’ should be read conjunctively, meaning Rs 50,000 collectively for both the daughters.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court considered the petition on three grounds: (1) the quantum of maintenance, (2) the interpretation of the word ‘each’ in the operative order, and (3) whether maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application or the date of the order.
On the first issue, the Court noted that while the husband disclosed an income of Rs 3,98,870 per month, he was only paying Rs 50,000 to the wife, and Rs 25,000 to each daughter. As far as the wife’s claim of Rs 1 lakh per child was concerned, the Court opined that it was not necessary that a proportionate part of a husband’s income must be awarded to the wife and children; rather the maintenance must be in proportion to the needs of the children. The Court observed that the maintenance earlier awarded by the Family Court was meager compared to the needs of the children and the standard of living they were accustomed to and that although the husband claimed to cover additional expenses, such payments could not be left to his discretion. henceforth, the Court dismissed the wife’s claim for maintenance of Rs 1 Lakh to each of the children.
On the second issue, the Court opined that the amount of Rs 50,000 per month was a meager amount for the two daughters of growing age and it was inadequate and very less as each would only be getting Rs 25,000. Thus, the Court observed that the word ‘each’ would be interpreted as Rs 50,000 to the wife and each of the daughters individually.
On the third issue, the Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandated that maintenance is to be awarded from the date of the application. The Court also referred to Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3886, wherein the same was reiterated. The Court opined that the wife’s financial vulnerability, her role as sole caregiver, and the husband’s earning capacity were not assessed in their proper perspective.
The Court observed that the Family Court did not undertake the comprehensive evaluative exercise and failed to apply the mandatory rule regarding date of awarding maintenance, which constituted errors warranting correction in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, the Court, while partly allowing the writ petition, modified the order to hold that the wife and her two daughters were individually entitled to Rs 50,000 per month from the date of the application, with adjustments in the arrear for the amounts already paid under the interim Consent Terms.
[X v. Y, Writ Petition No. 3828 of 2024, decided on 12-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Samarth Moray i/b. Shivani Shinde, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Vikramaditya Deshmukh a/w Priya Chaubey i/b. Sapana Rachure, Advocates, S.S. Kaushik, APP.