Madras HC: No Interim Maintenance if Wife Has Own Income & Property

The Madras High Court has ruled that a financially independent wife cannot claim interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if she already has substantial income and property in her name.

Justice P.B. Balaji, while partly allowing a civil revision petition filed by the husband, set aside the Family Court’s order that directed him to pay ₹30,000 per month to his wife, in addition to maintenance for their son.

Why the Court Interfered

• The Family Court (January 27, 2023) had ordered the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month each to the wife and their son, plus ₹2.77 lakh towards NEET coaching fees for the child.

• The husband challenged only the award to the wife, arguing she was already a Director of M/s Roentgen Scan World Pvt Ltd, receiving annual dividends of ₹15–16 lakh, and also owned valuable immovable properties.

• He alleged that she had even approached the NCLT to block release of dividends and transferred one property to her father during the case to hide her financial position.

Wife’s Arguments

• She claimed the dividends were spent entirely on her son’s education and that she had no other steady income from the scan centre.

• She also denied suppressing assets and insisted maintenance was required to sustain herself.

Court’s Findings

• Financial records showed the wife received:

• ₹15,18,750 in 2021–22

• ₹16,20,000 in 2022–23

• ₹16,20,000 in 2023–24

• She also owned land in Thiruporur and other properties.

• Referring to Supreme Court rulings in Shailja v. Kobbanna (2018) and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), the High Court noted:

• Interim maintenance is meant to ensure sustenance, not give an unjust financial advantage.

• A spouse with sufficient independent income cannot claim further support.

The Final Order

• Interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to the wife was set aside.

• Maintenance of ₹30,000 for the son and full coverage of his education expenses was confirmed.

• Justice Balaji clarified:

“The object of Section 24 is to provide sufficient income for sustenance. The respondent does not lack such income.”

Case Title: Dr. C. Amarnath v. Dr. J. Remabarathi

Bench: Justice P.B. Balaji

Date of Judgment: August 22, 2025