The High Court of Judicature at Madras has modified an order of interim maintenance awarded to a wife, reducing the amount from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month. The decision came after the Court found that the wife, who was “gainfully employed and earning a gross salary of more than Rs.1 lakh per month,” had suppressed this fact in her affidavit seeking maintenance.
The Justice P.B. Balaji, presiding over a Civil Revision Petition (CRP.No.4112 of 2024), delivered the order on October 25, 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner (husband) filed the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside a maintenance order dated 15.06.2024, passed by the Sub-Judge, Alandur.
The order for interim maintenance was granted in I.A.No.01 of 2022, an application filed by the respondent (wife), within the main petition H.M.O.P.No.298 of 2021. The H.M.O.P. had been originally filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In her application, the wife had sought 1/3rd of the husband’s salary as interim maintenance.
The Sub-Judge, Alandur, had awarded the wife Rs. 15,000 per month, payable from 14.03.2022 until the disposal of the main H.M.O.P. The trial court, in its order, noted that the parties have a five-year-old son and that the awarded sum was necessary “to meet the day to day escalation of costs and also to maintain a school going child of tender age.”
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband argued that the respondent-wife “had suppressed her gainful employment” when she approached the court. He contended that she had done so while claiming the husband earned only Rs. 8,000, which was insufficient for her and the minor son.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted a pay slip for December 2022, which “evidences the fact that the respondent has been employed with Cognizant” since July 2018 and that her “net salary is Rs.87,876/-.” Based on this, the husband argued that the wife had “committed perjury” and was “not entitled to any maintenance whatsoever.”
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the main H.M.O.P. had already been disposed of and the maintenance was only for that limited period. He argued that “a reading of the affidavit would sufficiently disclose that the maintenance that was sought for by the respondent was only for the minor son and not for herself,” even if not “specifically set out.”
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
After hearing both sides, Justice P.B. Balaji observed that the petitioner’s counsel was correct regarding the wife’s income suppression. The Court stated, “As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has suppressed her true income in her affidavit.”
The judgment further noted, “It is clear from the pay slip for December 2022 that the respondent is gainfully employed and earning a gross salary of more than Rs.1 lakh per month.”
The High Court also commented on the wife’s original maintenance application, finding that “the averments are vague and do not even indicate whether the respondent wants maintenance for herself also or only for her minor child.”
While the trial court had noted the husband’s changing income, the High Court emphasized the wife’s corresponding duty. “The respondent, as the mother of the minor son, is equally liable to contribute for the maintenance and upkeep of the minor son,” Justice Balaji observed.
Final Decision
Concluding that the wife was earning a gross income of over Rs. 1 lakh even when she filed the maintenance application, the High Court proceeded to modify the lower court’s order.
The High Court disposed of the revision petition with the following directions:
- The order of the Sub-Court, Alandur, was modified, and the interim maintenance was “fixed at Rs.10,000/-.”
- The petitioner-husband is “entitled to seek adjustment of Rs.5,000/- per month, subject to proof of payment” for the relevant period (14.03.2022, till disposal of the H.M.O.P.), reflecting the husband’s claim that he was already paying this amount.
- The petitioner-husband was directed to settle the balance amount, after adjustments, “within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
- There shall be no order as to costs.
