The Bombay High Court recently upheld a Family Court order that directed a husband to pay Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife, dismissing his appeal against the order. Justice Manjusha Deshpande, while delivering the judgment, pointed out that a woman cannot be denied financial support from her husband merely because she is earning. The Court stressed that she is entitled to maintain the same standard of living that she had become accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

The case involves a couple who were married on November 28, 2012. According to the husband, marital discord began in May 2015, when the wife left their home and began living with her parents. He alleged that she regularly threw tantrums and ill-treated him, despite his efforts to provide her with a comfortable life, including purchasing a new flat to suit her wishes. The husband contended that the wife's demands were unreasonable and that she imposed conditions he could not meet.

Eventually, the husband filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act at the Family Court in Bandra, Mumbai. In response, the wife filed an interim application on September 29, 2021, seeking maintenance. The Family Court passed an order in her favour on August 24, 2023, awarding her Rs 15,000 per month until the disposal of the divorce petition.

Challenging the Family Court's decision, the husband's counsel, Advocate Shashipal Shankar, argued that the wife was financially independent. He stated that she was employed as a school teacher, earning Rs 21,820 per month, and also conducted tuition classes, generating an additional annual income of Rs 2,00,000. Further, he pointed out that she earned interest from fixed deposits and savings.

However, the wife’s lawyer, Advocate S.S. Dube, countered that the husband was employed with a reputed company as a Senior Manager or Marketing Executive and earned a substantial salary, running into lakhs. Despite his strong financial position, he had failed to fulfil his legal responsibility of supporting his wife. She claimed that her current income was insufficient to cover her living expenses, and she was forced to stay with her parents and brother, which was causing stress and inconvenience.

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the wife’s income was too modest to allow her a dignified life. The judge noted that she had to commute long distances to work and was living in a cramped arrangement with her brother and elderly parents. The Court concluded that her earnings did not provide her with the means to live independently or comfortably. It further pointed out that the husband’s income was significantly higher and that he did not have any major financial burdens. Even after accounting for his personal expenses and legal obligations, he had sufficient means to support his wife, as ordered by the Family Court.