The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife who has sufficient independent income and owns valuable properties is not entitled to claim interim maintenance from her husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Justice P.B. Balaji set aside a Family Court order that had directed a husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife, observing that the object of the provision is to support a spouse who cannot sustain themselves, not to supplement the income of an already affluent one.
Case Background
The matter reached the High Court through a Civil Revision Petition filed by the husband, challenging an order dated January 27, 2023, by the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. The husband had initially filed for divorce. During these proceedings, the wife filed two applications: one seeking interim maintenance for herself and their son, and another for their son’s educational expenses.
The Family Court had directed the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month each to the wife and the son. The husband did not contest the maintenance for his son or the direction to pay his educational fees, which amounted to approximately ₹2.77 lakhs for NEET coaching. His challenge was solely against the interim maintenance awarded to his wife.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner-Husband’s Submissions:
Senior Counsel for the husband argued that the wife was not only self-sufficient but “affluent.” He submitted that she is a Director of a private limited company and receives substantial dividends. It was pointed out that her conduct was mala fide, as she had approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking to restrain the company from releasing dividends to herself, allegedly to create a basis for her maintenance claim.
The counsel further contended that the wife owned valuable properties worth crores and had even settled a property in her father’s name during the proceedings to conceal her wealth. He asserted that the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to provide for a spouse’s basic and decent living, which was not a concern in this case given the wife’s financial status.
Respondent-Wife’s Submissions:
Counsel for the wife countered that the dividend income received by her was entirely spent on their son’s educational expenses. He stated that she had no regular income from the scan center, a fact supported by her income tax returns from 2020 to 2022.
Regarding the property settlement, the counsel explained that the property originally belonged to her mother and was transferred to her father as he was the “ostensible owner,” having provided the funds for its purchase. He argued that the husband himself had a significant income, drawing a substantial salary from the government and the company, and therefore the Family Court’s order was justified.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice P.B. Balaji, after considering the arguments, delved into the objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court observed, “The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle that she would have had in the matrimonial home.”
The court found it undisputed that the wife was a Director in a company and had received significant dividends. Evidence showed she received net payments of ₹15,18,750 for the financial year 2021-22, ₹16,20,000 for 2022-23, and ₹16,20,000 for 2023-24.
The court did not find the wife’s explanation for settling a valuable property in her father’s name during the pendency of the proceedings to be bona fide. It noted that this action “clearly appears to be only in order to get over the objections of the petitioner that the respondent is affluent and owns valuable immovable properties.”
The judgment highlighted the husband’s fairness in willingly covering his son’s educational expenses and not challenging the ₹30,000 monthly maintenance awarded to him.
The court concluded that the Family Court had erred by awarding maintenance to the wife without properly considering the evidence of her substantial income and property ownership. Justice Balaji stated, “I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, noting that while there is no straightjacket formula, factors like the wife’s independent income and ability to maintain the same standard of living are crucial. Applying this principle, the High Court found that the wife did not require any further amount for a comfortable lifestyle.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition. The order of the Family Court dated January 27, 2023, was set aside specifically concerning the award of interim maintenance to the wife. The maintenance awarded to the son remains in effect.
