Earning Wife Still Entitled to ₹15,000 Maintenance: Bombay High Court Upholds Family Court’s Order
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a wife who is earning cannot be denied financial support if her income does not match the lifestyle she was used to during her marriage.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande made this observation while rejecting a husband’s appeal against a family court order that directed him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
Though the wife works as a school teacher, the court noted that her income is mostly spent on daily travel and basic living costs. She is currently living with her parents due to financial difficulties. The court also found a major difference between the earnings of the husband and wife.
The court stated that when deciding maintenance, factors such as income, age, responsibilities, needs, and other sources of income must be considered. The judge found that the wife’s income was not enough for her to live independently or maintain the same standard of living she had while married.
The couple got married in November 2012. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home in May 2015. He alleged that she was disrespectful and demanding, and even after buying a new flat for her, she remained dissatisfied.
The husband later filed for divorce at the Bandra Family Court. Meanwhile, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance, which was granted at ₹15,000 per month.
The husband then approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the wife earns ₹21,820 as a teacher, along with ₹2 lakh per year from tuition and additional income from fixed deposits. He claimed his own salary is ₹57,935, with monthly expenses of ₹54,000, including care for his elderly parents.
In response, the wife said her actual take-home pay is ₹19,820 and is not enough to support herself. She pointed out that she lives with her parents and shares the home with her brother’s family. She also accused the husband of hiding his real income, claiming his actual earnings are over ₹1.5 lakh per month, supported by salary slips.
The High Court agreed with the wife’s claims, stating that the husband had not revealed his true income. The court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, which outlines that maintenance must be based on income, status, and the reasonable needs of the wife.
The court finally concluded that the ₹15,000 maintenance set by the family court was fair and justified. It dismissed the husband’s petition, saying, “The order passed by the Family Court is not unreasonable. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.”
Case Title: S.K.P.S vs P.S.S
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
