The Bombay High Court affirmed a decision mandating a man to pay interim maintenance to his wife and minor son, emphasizing that a woman living in her matrimonial home is entitled to financial support for essential expenses. Justice Neela Gokhale highlighted that merely residing in the matrimonial home does not negate her right to a reasonable amount of maintenance. The judge emphasized that the woman still requires financial assistance for necessities such as food, medicine, clothing, and educational expenses.
In Mumbai, the Bombay High Court, recognizing the entitlement of a woman residing in her matrimonial home to receive maintenance for essential expenses, upheld a directive mandating a man to provide interim maintenance to his wife and minor son.
“The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance.She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses,” Justice Neela Gokhale said in the Jan 4 verdict.
The couple, who got married in June 2012, began living separately in November 2021 due to discord in their relationship. The husband initiated divorce proceedings, citing cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a Kalyan civil court. Simultaneously, the wife filed for interim maintenance, and the court granted her Rs 15,000 per month, along with Rs 10,000 for their son as monthly interim maintenance.
Disputing the fairness of the order, the husband approached the High Court, arguing that it lacks a balance of equities. He asserted that his wife resides in the matrimonial home, which he owns, and claimed to be paying a monthly EMI of Rs 60,000 for the flat. In contrast, he stated that he lives on rent with his mother. Additionally, he pointed out that his wife earns approximately Rs 10,000 per month through freelancing recruitment.
Examining the documents, the judge observed that the husband, a qualified engineer, earns a monthly income of Rs 1.3 lakh, possesses a car, shares, and holds a fairly modest standard of living. In contrast, the wife, an MBA, is unemployed and occasionally earns Rs 10,000 through freelance work. Due to her responsibilities in single-handedly caring for their 10-year-old son and covering his expenses, she struggles to secure a permanent job.
Justice Gokhale emphasized that the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to prevent the dependent spouse from facing destitution or vagrancy due to the breakdown of the marriage, rather than being a punitive measure against the other party. While there is no fixed formula for determining maintenance amounts, the legal stance suggests it should be “reasonable and realistic,” avoiding extremes of extravagance or inadequacy.
In rejecting the husband’s petition, Justice Gokhale concluded that the awarded quantum of interim maintenance is “reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity.”
