Earning Wife Still Entitled to Maintenance from Husband: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that merely because a wife is employed, she cannot be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she is accustomed in her matrimonial home.

In doing so, a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner-husband, who had approached the high court challenging the order passed by the family court at Bandra that had granted maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to the respondent-wife.

The judge observed that even though the wife was employed as a school teacher, her income was largely spent on daily travel. He further added that her income was not sufficient to sustain the standard of living she was accustomed to during the marriage, especially as she continued to reside with her parents due to financial constraints.

"...because of her meager earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother alongwith her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such a income she is not in a position to live a decent life," the court added.

While upholding the family court’s decision, the high court noted that there existed a huge disparity in the income of the petitioner and the respondent. Despite the wife’s earnings, they were insufficient to sustain herself independently.

"In determining the quantum of maintenance, the considerations that are required to be taken into consideration are the income of the respective parties; their age; their responsibilities; their reasonable needs; necessities and income derived from other sources, if any," the court noted.

The petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife got married on 28th November 2012. The petitioner claimed that the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home in May 2015 to live with her parents. He alleged that her tantrums and ill-treatment eventually strained the relationship.

Despite him buying a new flat for her comfort, the petitioner claimed that the wife's attitude did not change and that she insisted on conditions impossible for him to fulfill.

Following this, the petitioner-husband moved a petition for divorce before the family court at Bandra, Mumbai. The wife, on the other hand, filed an interim application for maintenance on 29th September. The family court therefore granted Rs 15,000 as interim maintenance to the wife.

The husband then approached the Bombay High Court challenging the order passed by the family court.

Appearing for the husband, Advocate Shashipal Shankar challenged the maintenance order mainly on the ground that the wife was employed as a teacher at a school with a salary of Rs 21,820. In addition to this, he argued that she earns Rs 2 lakh annually from tuition. He also added that she receives income from Fixed Deposits.

Further, he claimed that the husband's net salary is Rs 57,935, with monthly expenses of Rs 54,000, including care for his elderly parents. Therefore, it was difficult for him to pay Rs 15,000 towards maintenance.

On the other hand, the respondent-wife contended that her net monthly salary of Rs 19,820 is insufficient to meet her needs, especially as she resides with her parents, who in turn reside with her brother’s family. She argued that with her meagre income, it is impossible for her to bear daily travel and living expenses.

Further, the wife also stated that the petitioner was suppressing his true income, pointing to salary slips showing monthly earnings of over Rs 1.5 lakh. She asserted that the petitioner was attempting to avoid his legal obligation to provide maintenance.

Taking note of the submissions of both parties, the high court found that the husband had not disclosed his true income and that he was suppressing his actual income. As per the salary slips, the court noted that the petitioner-husband’s actual income exceeded Rs 1,00,000 per month.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, (2025) 2 SCC 227, wherein the top court laid down guidelines for determining maintenance, including factors such as the status and income of the parties and the reasonable needs of the wife.

Court held that the wife was certainly entitled to be maintained at the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation.

In conclusion, the court held, "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. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged."

Case Title: S.K.P.S vs P.S.S

Read Judgement here: