Delhi High Court | Interim Maintenance Granted to Working Wife Despite ₹1 Lakh Salary | Cites Stark Income Gap With Husband Abroad, Enhances Support for Wife and Child
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be denied merely because the wife is highly qualified and employed. The Court observed that the provision is intended to ensure parity in the standard of living between estranged spouses so that the financially weaker spouse is not disadvantaged by the economic strength of the other. The Bench increased the maintenance for both the wife and child, holding that the wife’s earnings as an Assistant Professor were inadequate to maintain the marital lifestyle given the husband’s substantial income abroad.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised in November 2013 according to Hindu rites in Delhi. A daughter was born from the wedlock in August 2016. Following matrimonial discord, the spouses began living separately from October 2019, with custody of the minor child remaining with the appellant-wife
The husband instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty. In response, the wife filed an application under Section 24 seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child. She stated that she had been compelled to leave the matrimonial home and had since been residing with her parents. While she was employed as an Assistant Professor under Delhi University earning about ₹1,25,000 monthly, the husband was working with Adobe Systems in the United States, drawing income exceeding ₹1.5 crore per annum including salary, perks, restricted stock units, and other benefits
The wife submitted that the respondent had not made voluntary contributions towards her or the child’s upkeep, barring sporadic school fee payments in late 2020. She argued that the stark financial disparity warranted adequate maintenance, claiming ₹3,50,000 for herself and ₹96,000 per month for the child, in addition to arrears
The Family Court, by order dated 1 March 2024, directed the husband to pay ₹35,000 per month for the minor child along with all school-related expenses, but rejected the wife’s claim for her own maintenance. The Court reasoned that she was employed, educated, and capable of sustaining herself. Aggrieved, the wife preferred the present appeal challenging the sufficiency of the award and denial of her maintenance
.
Counsel for the wife argued that the Family Court had erred in disregarding the respondent’s actual financial capacity, which exceeded ₹10 lakhs monthly as per income tax returns showing annual incomes of over ₹1 crore with tax payments of about ₹44 lakhs. It was contended that her own income was modest in comparison, insufficient to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during marriage, and inadequate to cover incidental expenses of the child’s upbringing
On the other hand, the husband’s counsel argued that Section 24 is intended to prevent destitution, not to equalise incomes or subsidise a lavish lifestyle. It was urged that the wife is highly qualified, employed, and self-sufficient, and therefore disentitled to maintenance. Reliance was placed on Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (Madhya Pradesh High Court), and Delhi High Court precedents such as Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta and KN v. RG, where maintenance was denied to earning spouses. The husband further submitted that he had voluntarily contributed ₹19,20,555 towards the child’s upkeep, and that the wife was enjoying a more comfortable lifestyle post-separation than during marriage
The Bench observed: “The determinative test is not merely whether the wife is employed or capable of earning, but whether her income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to during cohabitation.” The Court noted the financial disparity, with the respondent earning nearly ten times more than the appellant. It recorded: “The very purpose of interim maintenance is to strike a fair balance and ensure parity in lifestyle, so that the financially weaker spouse and the child are not prejudiced by the economic advantage of the other.”
The Bench referred to precedents, stating: “Merely because the wife is earning, it does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding the maintenance. The parameter remains whether her source of income is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself along with minor child. The maintenance has to be realistic, avoiding either of two extremes i.e. neither oppressive or extravagant, nor meagre to drive the applicant wife to penury or mere support.”
Citing Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the Court recorded: “It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself.” Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha, the Bench stated: “The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband… The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.”
The Court noted: “The purpose of Section 24 of the HMA is not to equalise the incomes of the parties but to ensure that both maintain the same standard of living.” The Bench held that the Family Court erred in treating the wife’s income as sufficient without considering the qualitative difference in economic status. “The objective of Section 24 of the HMA is to ensure that neither spouse suffers economic hardship or social disadvantage due to the breakdown of the marital relationship.”
On the appellant’s living conditions, the Court stated: “She is currently residing with her parents, which cannot continue indefinitely, and her limited earnings compel her to remain dependent on them, causing inconvenience and hardship to the family. With such resources, she is unable to maintain a reasonable standard of living.” The Court recorded that the respondent’s substantially higher income made him financially capable of providing adequate maintenance.
The Bench concluded: “The mere fact that the appellant is earning does not disentitle her to claim maintenance, as she is entitled to the same standard of living that she enjoyed during her matrimonial life.”
“Considering the material on record, the totality of circumstances, the social status of the parties, their lifestyle, financial status, the liabilities, the needs of the minor child and the wife, the increasing price index of necessities, and the responsibility of the wife to maintain the child, we enhance the maintenance amount from Rs. 35,000/-, as granted by the learned Family Court, to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, cumulatively for both, the appellant and the child.”
“The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” The Court also recorded: “The pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.” It concluded: “There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Sahni, Ms. Jasmine Sahni & Ms. Ashmine Sahni, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Rahul & Mrs. Sutapa Ghose, Advocates
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7888-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 252/2024 & CM APPL. 45186/2024
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar
