Madras High Court | Interim Maintenance to Wife Set Aside Under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act | Court Finds Substantial Dividend Income and Property Ownership Show Self-Sufficiency
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has set aside the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the respondent/wife. The Court held that such an award was unnecessary given that the respondent was already in receipt of substantial income from dividends and was in possession of immovable properties. However, the Court upheld the directions relating to the educational expenses and interim maintenance awarded to the minor son, which had not been challenged by the petitioner. In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition, interfering with the order of the Family Court only to the extent of maintenance awarded to the respondent/wife.
The matter arose from a petition filed before the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, where the husband had sought dissolution of marriage in H.M.O.P. No.3564 of 2019. During the pendency of those proceedings, the respondent/wife filed two interlocutory applications: I.A. No.1 of 2021 seeking interim maintenance for herself and her son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and I.A. No.2 of 2021 seeking a direction to the husband to pay the school fees, including NEET coaching fee, for their son.
The Family Court, by its order dated 27 January 2023, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month each to the respondent/wife and to the minor son. It also directed the husband to meet educational expenses, including NEET coaching fees, for the son. The husband did not challenge the order relating to the son’s maintenance or the payment of educational expenses. The challenge was confined to the direction to pay Rs.30,000 per month to the respondent/wife.
The petitioner/husband contended before the High Court that the respondent/wife was financially self-sufficient and affluent. He submitted that she was a Director of M/s Roentgen Scan World Private Limited and had been receiving dividends. He argued that she had even approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking restraint on the release of dividends, a step alleged to have been taken solely to claim maintenance. He pointed to her acquisition of valuable immovable properties and contended that the interim maintenance was unjustified.
The petitioner stated that he was willing to bear all reasonable expenses for the son and had already paid the NEET coaching fees in compliance with the Family Court’s order. He accepted the award of maintenance for the son and submitted that his sole challenge was to the award of maintenance to the respondent/wife.
The respondent/wife, in reply, submitted that the dividends received had been spent on the educational expenses of the son and therefore could not be considered as available income for her own sustenance. She further submitted that she had disclosed her assets, including ownership of land in Thiruporur, and denied suppression of material facts. She stated that her income tax returns reflected no income from the Scan Centre between 2020 and 2022. On the issue of property settlement, she explained that one of the properties originally belonging to her mother was re-settled in favour of her father since he was the ostensible owner.
The respondent/wife also contended that the petitioner/husband himself had invested in the Scan Centre during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, producing documentary evidence to show investments of Rs.48 lakhs in April 2019 and Rs.20 lakhs in another entity, Scan Point. She pointed out that the petitioner was drawing regular salaries amounting to Rs.3,80,000 from Scan World and Rs.1,62,602 from the Government, demonstrating his financial capability to pay the interim maintenance.
The Family Court, after considering the submissions, had directed maintenance of Rs.30,000 each to both wife and son. This order was partly challenged by the husband before the High Court through Civil Revision Petition.
Justice P.B. Balaji recorded the scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by reproducing it in the judgment. The Court stated: “The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle that she would have had in the matrimonial home.”
The Court noted that the respondent was a Director of Roentgen Scan World Private Limited and had been receiving regular dividends since 2016. The Court observed: “The statement dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Scan World evidences the fact that for the financial years 2021-2022, the respondent has been paid a net amount of Rs.15,18,750/-, for the financial year 2022-23 a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- and for the financial year 2023 – 2024, a sum of Rs.16,20,000/-.” These payments, it noted, were made through RTGS transactions, and the respondent admitted having received them.
On the claim that these amounts had been used for educational expenses, the Court noted the contention but observed that the wife was nonetheless possessed of substantial income. Regarding the property settlement, the Court stated: “The explanation offered by the respondent is that the father was the ostensible owner having brought the property in the name of the mother and therefore, the respondent has settled the property in favour of her father, does not appear to be bonafide.” The Court found that the settlement executed during the pendency of the proceedings appeared intended to overcome the petitioner’s objections.
The Court considered the financial standing of both parties. It noted the substantial dividends received by the respondent and her ownership of immovable property. Justice Balaji observed: “I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance.”
Referring to the Supreme Court decisions relied upon, the Court stated: “In Shailja’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning is not sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.” It also stated: “In Rajnesh’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no straight jacket formula for fixing maintenance and the Court has to waive the status of parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, their education qualifications, any independent source of income accruing to the wife and whether such income would be sufficient to enable the wife to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home.”
After considering these judgements, the Court observed that the respondent was already in receipt of substantial income and had immovable properties. It recorded: “Even applying the ratio laid down in Rajnesh’s case, I do not find that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.”
On the other hand, the Court noted the petitioner’s acceptance of the responsibility to meet all expenses related to his son, including payment of Rs.2,77,000 for NEET coaching and monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000 for the child. Justice Balaji recorded: “In all fairness, the petitioner has stated that he is willing to meet the educational expenses of his son and has also complied with the order in I.A.No.2 of 2021. Even with regard to the award of Rs.30,000/- maintenance to the son, the petitioner has accepted the said order and has not even challenged the same.”
In conclusion, the Court held that the Family Court had failed to provide reasoning with respect to the wife’s ownership of properties and dividend income. Justice Balaji stated: “The Family Court, after taking into account the assets and liabilities filed by both the parties, has only focused its attention on the requirement of the son, A. Anirudh and without any reasons or even discussion with regard to the specific averments regarding the ownership of immovable properties and income accruing from the Company by way of dividends, has straight away proceeded to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the wife as well.”
The High Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition. Justice P.B. Balaji concluded: “In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order of the Family Court dated 27.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 is set aside insofar as the respondent/wife alone. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
Accordingly, the award of interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month to the wife was quashed. The award of interim maintenance to the son and the direction to meet the educational expenses, including NEET coaching fees, remained undisturbed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel for Mrs. S. Karpagapriya
For the Respondents: Mr. J. James
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Case Number: CRP No.2590 of 2025 & CMP No.14720 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.B. Balaji
