Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande partly allowed a wife’s challenge to an interim maintenance order and modified it to hold that the wife and each of the two minor daughters are entitled to ₹50,000 per month from the date of the maintenance application, with amounts already paid under interim consent terms to be adjusted while computing arrears. The dispute centred on the quantum and interpretation of maintenance payable by the husband, including whether the amount for the children was collective or per child, and the date from which it would run. The Court also noted that a higher disclosed income does not, by itself, warrant awarding a proportionate share as maintenance, which must correspond to needs, and it declined the request for ₹1 lakh per month per daughter.

The petitioner and the respondent were married on 11 April 2014 and have two minor daughters. Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, following which the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court. During the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings, the petitioner-wife instituted proceedings seeking maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and also filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Also Read: POSH Act | Woman May Approach ICC Of Her Own Workplace Against Sexual Harassment By Employee Of Another Organisation : Supreme Court

During the pendency of the interim maintenance application, the parties entered into interim consent terms, under which the respondent agreed to pay ₹20,000 per month towards the expenses of the petitioner and the children. Subsequently, the Family Court passed an order granting interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month, directing payment from the date of the order. Ambiguity arose regarding whether the said amount was payable individually or collectively to the children, and the petitioner also challenged the commencement date of maintenance. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking enhancement and clarification of the interim maintenance order.

The Court examined the financial disclosures placed on record and observed that “the amount of income disclosed by the Respondent is not disputed by the Petitioner.” It stated that maintenance cannot be mechanically fixed as a proportion of income and recorded that “the maintenance has to be in proportion with the needs of the children.” The Court noted that although the respondent relied on documents showing payment of school fees and other expenses, such payments alone could not determine the adequacy of maintenance, observing that “those expenses, which appear to be necessary, it cannot be left to the discretion or mercy of the Respondent.”

While considering the ambiguity in the Family Court’s operative order, the Court focused on the expression used therein and observed that “the words ‘each’ used in the order assumes importance.” It recorded that the operative direction first mentions the amount of ₹50,000 and thereafter uses the term “each to the Respondent-Wife and their two daughters.” The Court stated that this construction “will have to be interpreted as Rs. 50,000/- to the Wife and each of the daughters individually.” It further recorded that “the word ‘each’ will have to be read as each of the two daughters individually,” rejecting the interpretation that the amount was awarded collectively to both daughters.

On the issue of the commencement of maintenance, the Court referred to binding precedent and observed that “all the ambiguity and confusion has already been set to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rajnesh (supra), which clearly mandates that the maintenance has to be paid from the date of application.” It further recorded that the Supreme Court has held that “maintenance will be awarded from the date of the application,” and noted that deviation from this rule requires reasons. The Court observed that the Family Court’s failure to assign reasons for granting maintenance from the date of the order “constitutes an error apparent on the face of record.”

Addressing the reliance placed on interim consent terms, the Court recorded that “the Consent Terms entered between the parties did not create any bar for the Court to grant maintenance from the date of application,” particularly in view of the circumstances prevailing at the time they were executed. It further observed that the amount received under such interim arrangement “is needed to be considered while granting the maintenance quantified by the Court.”

Also Read: Subsequent Purchaser’s Vehicle Registration Cannot Be Cancelled For Prior False Representation Through Forged Import Papers Claiming Diplomatic Duty Exemption: Bombay High Court Restores RC

The Court directed that “the Petitioner and the two daughters are individually entitled for maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. from the date of application. The amount(s) of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. already paid by the Respondent during the pendency of the Interim Application, shall be adjusted while making the payment of arrears of maintenance admissible to the Petitioner.”

The impugned order passed by the Family Court dated 22.08.2023 is modified to the aforesaid extent and the rule is made absolute.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Samarth Moray, Advocate, instructed by Ms. Shivani Shinde
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, Advocate, along with Ms. Priya Chaubey, instructed by Ms. Sapana Rachure

Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:54818
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3828 of 2024
Bench: Justice Manjusha Deshpande