The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has partially allowed a writ petition filed by a husband, reducing the interim maintenance payable to his wife from ₹1,00,000 to ₹75,000 per month. Justice M. W. Chandwani clarified that while determining maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, the court must consider only the “income” of the parties and not “idle property” or capital assets that do not generate revenue.
Background of the Case
The petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) married on November 27, 2004. In March 2019, the husband alleged he discovered the wife’s extra-marital relationship, leading to their separation. Subsequently, the husband filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the HMA, while the wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9.
During the divorce proceedings, the wife applied for interim maintenance of ₹5 lakhs per month under Section 24. On March 13, 2023, the Family Court No. 3, Nagpur, directed the husband to pay ₹1,00,000 per month as interim maintenance and ₹25,000 in litigation costs. The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner (Husband): The husband’s counsel, Mr. Rishi Bhargava, argued that the Family Court failed to follow the mandatory disclosure requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha. He contended that the court erroneously applied the standards of “permanent alimony” under Section 25 to “interim maintenance” under Section 24.
He further submitted that the husband’s gross total income is approximately ₹20 lakhs per annum and that he is solely responsible for the education of their children in the United Kingdom. He further alleged the wife was running a catering business named ‘Narmada Caterers’ and earning ₹20,000 per month.
Respondent (Wife): Mr. Ritesh Badhe, appearing for the wife, argued that she is entitled to a lifestyle at par with the husband, who travels frequently abroad and has stakes in multiple companies. He denied that she runs a catering business, stating it belongs to her brother. He also pointed out that the husband’s willingness to purchase costly property in a separate civil suit indicated he possessed sufficient means.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court focused on the legal distinction between Section 24 (Interim Maintenance) and Section 25 (Permanent Alimony). Justice Chandwani observed:
“The distinction between the law laid down under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1955 is unambiguous and clear. Section 24 uses the word ‘income’ whereas, Section 25 uses the words ‘income and property’ both. While considering the quantum of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, it is only the income and not the property or the capital source which are to be considered.”
Citing the Calcutta High Court in Gita Chatterjee Vs. Probhat Kumar Chatterjee, the Court noted that “fruits of the tree are income, but not the tree.” It emphasized that idle property which does not generate income cannot be factored into the calculation for interim support.
Regarding the husband’s income, the Court found that while his individual Income Tax Returns showed ₹20 lakhs per annum, he held significant stakes (90% or more) in various companies, including Amrapali Bar and Restaurant and Motel Amrapali Pvt. Ltd. The Court concluded:
“It appears that apart from the income shown in his individual returns of income, the petitioner has handsome income from the companies to pay the maintenance amount to the respondent.”
However, the Court also noted that the respondent failed to provide a detailed breakup of her claimed ₹5 lakhs monthly expenditure.
The Decision
The High Court held that considering the husband’s responsibility toward his children’s foreign education and the wife’s essential needs, an amount of ₹2,500 per day (totaling ₹75,000 per month) would be “just and proper” to support her during the pendency of the petition.
The Court maintained the litigation cost of ₹25,000. The observations were clarified to be prima facie in nature, applicable only for the determination of interim maintenance.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sachin S/o Balasaheb Agne vs. Harshada W/o Sachin Agne
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2210 of 2023
Bench: Justice M. W. Chandwani
Date: April 10, 2026
