The Bombay High Court has reduced a husband’s monthly interim maintenance payment from Rs 50,000 to Rs 25,000, ruling that when both spouses earn an income, equality cannot be claimed selectively and both must contribute if they wish to maintain a particular lifestyle.
Justice M M Sathaye delivered the ruling while hearing a petition filed by a 41-year-old chartered accountant. The court observed that a spouse cannot demand to reside in a premium location without contributing to mortgage payments, nor expect the earning partner to bear the entire financial burden alone while paying higher maintenance.
Financial Burden and Loan Obligations
The husband, who previously worked in Mumbai on a substantial salary, took out housing loans to purchase two apartments—one in Andheri and another in Panvel. During the Covid-19 pandemic, he lost his employment and subsequently relocated to his native place in Madhya Pradesh to establish a independent accounting practice.
Represented by advocate Pushpa Ganediwal, the husband submitted that his income declined significantly following the pandemic, while he remains solely responsible for equated monthly installments (EMIs) of approximately Rs 60,000 for the Andheri flat and Rs 40,000 for the Panvel flat. He noted that he also supports his elderly parents in Madhya Pradesh and faces severe financial strain due to accumulating maintenance arrears.
Dispute Over Relocation and Property Sale
The husband proposed that if his wife relocated with their 12-to-13-year-old son to the Panvel flat, the higher-value Andheri flat could be sold to clear outstanding maintenance arrears and cover ongoing expenses. He expressed willingness to pay Rs 25,000 per month under this arrangement. However, the wife refused to move to Panvel or to his home state in Madhya Pradesh.
Representing the wife and child, advocate Akshay Shetty argued that the husband had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in Andheri.
Justice Sathaye found the husband’s request to sell the Andheri property justified, stating that no fault could be found with a party seeking to sell assets to manage monthly obligations and court-ordered maintenance when facing reduced earnings.
Earning Capacity and Shared Responsibility
The High Court noted that the wife holds a Master of Business Administration degree and was earning a salary of at least Rs 15,000 per month at the time of the previous family court order in January 2025.
Addressing the lower court’s findings, the High Court observed that the family court’s estimation of the husband’s monthly income at Rs 1 lakh to Rs 1.5 lakh lacked objective calculation or figures. The court further noted that the pandemic impacted earnings nationwide and that the husband’s reduced income could not be disregarded without cause.
Highlighting that the wife makes no contribution toward the loan installments for either flat, the court affirmed that both employed parents are expected to share costs, including expenses for their child’s education. The court added that decisions regarding a child’s schooling, location, and fee structure should be made jointly rather than decided unilaterally by one parent while expecting the other to cover the costs.
