“Earning Wife Still Deserves Maintenance” — High Court Orders Husband to Pay ₹15,000 Monthly Despite Claim She Earns Enough
“Earning Wife Still Deserves Maintenance” — High Court Orders Husband to Pay ₹15,000 Monthly Despite Claim She Earns Enough
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman cannot be denied financial support from her estranged husband simply because she is earning. The court emphasised that a wife is entitled to be maintained in the same standard of living she was used to before the separation.
The ruling came on June 18 from Justice Manjusha Deshpande, who dismissed a petition filed by a man challenging an earlier order from a family court. In August 2023, the family court had directed him to pay Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
Wife’s Earning Does Not End Her Right to Maintenance
The man had argued that his wife was earning over Rs 25,000 per month through her salary, tuition fees, and interest from fixed deposits, and therefore did not need maintenance from him. He claimed that he himself earned Rs 57,000 per month and had to spend Rs 54,000 monthly, including taking care of his ailing parents. On these grounds, he said he was unable to pay Rs 15,000 to his wife every month.
However, the woman told the court that her husband had not revealed his actual income. She said he earned more than Rs 1 lakh per month as a Senior Manager or Marketing Executive with a well-known retail company. She also informed the court that his father received a monthly pension of Rs 28,000 from the municipal school where he had retired.
After reviewing the details, the court ruled in favour of the woman, stating that her income was not enough to support herself properly. The court observed that she travelled long distances for work and could not live a decent life with the income she currently earns.
“She cannot be deprived of the support from her husband”
Justice Deshpande stated, “Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she is accustomed to in her matrimonial home.” The court further noted that the man’s income was significantly higher than the woman’s and that he did not have any real financial responsibilities.
While the husband had claimed that the wife earned additional money from fixed deposit interest and tuition classes, the court said the interest was “negligible” and the income from tuitions could not be considered a permanent or stable source.
Living with Family Not a Long-Term Solution
The court also pointed out that the woman was currently living with her parents and brother but cannot do so indefinitely. The arrangement, the court said, may eventually become a source of inconvenience and hardship for all parties involved.
Additionally, the court stated that the man’s parents were not financially dependent on him as his father was already receiving a pension. “There is a huge disparity in the income of the Petitioner and the Respondent, which cannot be compared,” the judge said.
With these observations, the High Court upheld the earlier order of the family court, confirming that the man must continue paying Rs 15,000 as monthly maintenance to his wife.
