"Merely Because the Wife is Earning, She Cannot Be Deprived the Support from Her Husband": Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance Order Despite Wife's Income
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande, in a judgment dated 18th June 2025, upheld the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance to the respondent-wife. The Court dismissed the husband’s writ petition and recorded that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was not unreasonable or extreme. It concluded that despite the wife being employed, the disparity in income and her insufficient earnings justified the grant of maintenance. The Court directed that no interference was warranted in the order awarding Rs.15,000 per month to the wife.
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order passed in Interim Application No.164 of 2021 in Petition No. A-1744 of 2019, pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The impugned order, dated 24th August 2023, granted the respondent-wife a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 from 1st October 2022 until the disposal of the petition.
The petitioner and respondent were married on 28th November 2012. The petitioner alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home in May 2015 and began residing with her parents due to alleged ill-treatment and irreconcilable differences. Despite purchasing a new flat to accommodate her preferences, the petitioner contended that the respondent-wife continued to make unrealistic demands.
Subsequently, on 7th June 2019, the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent-wife filed an application for interim maintenance on 29th September 2021.
The petitioner’s challenge to the maintenance order was primarily based on the claim that the respondent-wife was employed and earned sufficient income. He submitted that she received a monthly salary of Rs.21,820 and earned an additional income of Rs.2,00,000 per annum from tuition classes. Further, he claimed she had interest income from fixed deposits, bringing her approximate monthly income to Rs.40,000.
The petitioner also relied on his affidavit of assets and liabilities, disclosing a gross salary of Rs.65,774 and a net salary of Rs.57,935, with monthly expenses totalling Rs.54,000. He stated his obligation to support his elderly parents.
In response, the respondent-wife submitted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. Her counsel pointed out discrepancies in the documents filed by the petitioner. Salary slips from April and September 2022 reflected his net pay as Rs.1,51,284 and Rs.1,17,338 respectively. Additional salary slips for January, February, and March 2024 showed earnings of Rs.66,713, Rs.68,962, and Rs.1,41,532 respectively.
The respondent alleged that the petitioner deliberately concealed the actual extent of his income and benefits received from his employment as a Senior Manager/Marketing Executive in a reputed company. She also stated that his father received a pension of Rs.28,000 from a Municipal Corporation school, indicating that his parents were not financially dependent on him.
The respondent further stated that she resided with her parents and brother’s family in constrained circumstances and was unable to afford separate accommodation. Her net income of Rs.19,820 was largely spent on daily expenses and transportation. She contended that her earnings were insufficient for a decent standard of living and reiterated that she had made full disclosure of her income.
The parties submitted affidavits of assets and liabilities in the Family Court proceedings. The petitioner stated he resided in a well-furnished flat in Casabella, Palava City, Lodha, Dombivli (East), Kalyan. Despite claiming a net salary of Rs.57,935, evidence presented by the respondent contradicted this figure.
The respondent-wife stated that her position as an Assistant Teacher at Holy Cross Convent High School in Thane fetched her a modest salary. She denied any significant fixed deposit interest income and clarified that income from tuition was not a regular or assured source.
The High Court carefully examined the affidavits and financial documents placed on record. It stated: "After hearing the respective parties and perusing the impugned order, it is undisputed that both parties are residing separately and have filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities in the Interim Application before the Family Court at Bandra."
"The Petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he is working as a marketing executive in Reliance Retail Limited and drawing a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- per month."
The Court noted the petitioner’s residence in a "well-furnished flat in a posh locality" and held that the claim of net salary being Rs.57,935 was contradicted by salary slips showing far higher earnings.
The Court observed: "His own affidavit discloses that his father draws a pension of Rs.28,000/- per month. Therefore, his parents are not financially dependent on him."
Referring to the petitioner’s claims, the Court noted: "The salary slips placed on record disclose his income above Rs.1,00,000/-."
As to the respondent’s earning capacity, the Court stated: "The Respondent-wife has disclosed her income to be Rs.18,000/- per month from her salary as an Assistant Teacher working in a Convent School."
"Even the income from tuition classes cannot be said to be a permanent source of income."
The Court recorded that there was "a huge disparity in the income of the Petitioner and the Respondent, which cannot be compared."
Quoting from Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain [(2025) 2 SCC 227], the Court listed the key considerations for maintenance:
"38.1. Status of the parties, social and financial.
38.2. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependant children.
38.3. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses.
38.4. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant.
38.5. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
38.6. Any employment sacrifices made for responsibilities.
38.7. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
38.8. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities."
The Court further cited Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724] as reinforcing the same principles.
It concluded: "Though the wife is earning, the said income is not sufficient for her own maintenance since she has to travel daily a long distance for her job."
"She is staying with her parents which she cannot stay indefinitely."
"Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she is accustomed to in her matrimonial home."
The High Court of Bombay declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order. It concluded: "I do not find the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is unreasonable or extreme. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not warrant interference."
The Writ Petition was dismissed in full. The Court directed: "In view of the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashipal Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. S. Dube a/w Mr. Nagendra Dube, Advocates
Case Title: S P S v. P S S
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:25107
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 16275 of 2023
Bench: Justice Manjusha Deshpande
