The Bombay High Court recently ruled that an earning wife is entitled to interim maintenance from her husband if her income is not sufficient to allow her to maintain the same standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. Justice Manjusha Deshpande set aside a Pune Family Court order that had denied maintenance to an architect wife, directing her restaurateur husband to pay her ₹1 lakh per month during the pendency of their divorce proceedings.
The Court held that the Family Court’s decision was “arbitrary and contrary to the record,” particularly its failure to consider the vast income disparity between the spouses and its misinterpretation of key evidence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an architect, filed a petition for divorce against her husband, the owner of two popular Pune restaurants, “Le Plaisir” and “Loco Octro.” The couple married on March 29, 2019, and separated in 2021. No children were born from the marriage.
Pending the divorce proceedings before the Family Court No. 2, Pune, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance (maintenance pendente lite). On November 4, 2024, the Family Court dismissed her application, prompting her to file a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner-Wife’s Contentions: Represented by Advocate Abhijit Sarwate, the wife argued that the Family Court’s order was erroneous and unsupported by documents. Key submissions included:
- Income Disparity: There was a significant gap in their earnings, with the husband’s net income for 2023-24 being ₹3,01,40,274.39, which was 61 times her net income of ₹4,92,160.
- No Suppression of Facts: The Family Court wrongly held that she had concealed receiving ₹20 lakhs and 10 Tola of gold as alimony from a previous marriage. She contended this was duly disclosed in her affidavits and rebuttal arguments, where she explained that the amount was partly paid to her father and the rest invested in mutual funds.
- Misinterpretation of Legal Notice: The court misinterpreted a legal notice dated August 18, 2022, in which she stated she had been bearing household expenses. This statement, she clarified, was intended to demonstrate the husband’s cruelty by not contributing despite his thriving business, not to suggest he lacked income.
- Husband’s Actual Income: The Family Court’s observation that it was “highly improbable” the husband was “earning in crores” was directly contradicted by his own affidavit of assets, which disclosed a net monthly income of ₹15.50 lakhs, and bank statements showing substantial, regular investments.
The Respondent-Husband’s Contentions: Advocate Sandesh Shukla, appearing for the husband, argued against the petition, submitting that:
- Wife’s Professional Standing: The petitioner is a highly qualified architect with her own reputed firm and had suppressed her actual income.
- Lack of “Clean Hands”: She was not entitled to maintenance because she had failed to disclose the alimony received from her former husband.
- Object of Section 24: The purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, which was not the case here as the wife had an independent and sufficient source of income.
- Wife’s Own Admission: Her claim in the legal notice that she bore all household expenses proved her capacity to maintain herself.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Manjusha Deshpande conducted a detailed analysis of the record and found the Family Court’s reasoning to be flawed.
The Court noted that the husband’s financial status was substantially documented. His own affidavit disclosed a net income of ₹15.50 lakhs per month. Furthermore, his bank statements revealed regular investments of ₹14,99,999 in fixed deposits and a one-time purchase of valuables worth ₹38 lakhs. The High Court found the Family Court’s dismissal of this evidence and its assumption that the husband would have bought immovable property if his income were high to be “erroneous and contrary to the record.”
Conversely, the Court accepted the wife’s declared income of ₹30,000 to ₹35,000 per month, which was supported by her Income Tax Returns, and noted that the husband’s claim that she earned over ₹1.25 lakhs per month was unsubstantiated.
The Court emphasized the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another (2021). It quoted paragraphs from the judgment establishing that the objective of maintenance is not just to prevent destitution but to ensure the dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort according to the standard of living of the other spouse.
Citing the Supreme Court, Justice Deshpande observed, “The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband.” The judgment further states, “Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.” The court must assess whether the wife’s income is sufficient to maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
Concluding that the wife’s income was insufficient for her upkeep and to bear litigation costs in a city like Pune, the Court held that the Family Court’s order was perverse.
In its final order, the High Court stated, “In view of the aforementioned observations, the order dated 04.11.2024, passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune, below Exhibits 5 and 22, being arbitrary and contrary to the record, is quashed and set aside.”
The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the husband to pay ₹1 lakh per month to the wife as interim maintenance from the date of the application until the final disposal of the divorce petition. On the respondent’s request, the implementation of the judgment was stayed for four weeks to allow him to approach the Supreme Court.
