Husband Can't Deny Maintenance To Wife Just Because She Is Staying In Matrimonial Home : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a woman residing in the matrimonial home would also be entitled to maintenance to meet her basic expenses. The court dismissed a petition filed by a husband challenging the interim maintenance granted by a Family Court to his estranged wife and minor son.

The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 10,000 for their 10-year-old son.

Justice Neela Gokhale observed,

“The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child.”

The court noted that the objective of granting interim maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of their marriage and “not as a punishment to the other side.”

The court said there was no “straight jacket formula” to fix the amount of maintenance but it must be reasonable and realistic.

The couple had gotten married in 2012 but differences arose between them leading to their separation in November 2021. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty while the wife sought interim maintenance for herself and the son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Before the High Court, the husband's lawyers argued that his wife was already staying in the matrimonial home owned by him and also earned from freelancing, so the maintenance amount awarded was excessive. They pointed out the husband's moderate lifestyle and the fact that he stayed on rent to care for his ailing mother.

However, the wife's lawyers submitted through affidavits and documents that the man earned around Rs. 1.3 lakhs per month as an engineer, owned a car and shares, and had spent over Rs. 5 lakhs on their son's education in one year. She was unemployed and bringing up their son single-handedly, entitling her to interim relief.

The High Court found that the Family Court had considered all relevant factors and awarded a reasonable, sufficient maintenance that was neither oppressive for the husband nor inadequate to fulfil the wife's needs.

Justice Gokhale observed that the mere fact of residing in the matrimonial home did not disentitle her to maintenance for food, medicine and the child's education.

Upholding the Family Court order, the HC noted that he could afford to pay the maintenance without facing undue hardship.

Case Title - XXX vs XXXX

Appearances – Adv Dilip P. Devadiga, for Petitioner.

Advs Vinay Kate with Swarupa Sarate, for the Respondent.

Case Number - WRIT PETITION NO. 11007 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order