US-Based Wife Earning More Than Husband Cannot Claim Maintenance Citing Cost Of Living Abroad, Says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim maintenance to a woman settled in the United States who sought Rs. 1 lakh a month from her estranged husband while her appeal for permanent alimony remains pending, holding that a well-qualified professional earning substantially more than the respondent cannot claim support merely on account of the high cost of living abroad.

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing an interim application filed by the appellant-wife in a family court appeal challenging a 2023 judgment of the Family Court, Pune, which had granted the couple a divorce but declined her prayer for permanent alimony. The couple's two sons were split in custody, with the elder staying with the father and the younger with the mother.

Pending the appeal, the wife sought interim maintenance, arguing that the husband owned multiple properties, including three houses in Pune, a house in Vita and three shops, while she struggled in a rented apartment in the US, managing her son's expenses amid an uncertain job situation. Her counsel submitted that a wife need not be destitute to claim maintenance, and that the husband, an "able-bodied man, leading a luxurious life," had the means to support her.

Appearing for the husband, advocate Abhijit Sarwate countered that the wife had been employed in the US since 2011 and was financially independent, drawing a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 from her employer, Mark Infotech Inc, New Jersey.

He pointed out that the Family Court had already examined her income while rejecting an earlier maintenance application, noting she earned more than the husband. It was also submitted that the properties cited by the wife stood in the names of the husband's father and brother, that his elderly parents depended on him after their voluntary retirement, and that he now had the additional responsibility of a second wife following his remarriage in 2024.

Weighing the rival submissions, the bench found merit in the husband's case. The order recorded that the wife, "a qualified professional, residing abroad since last 15 years, who has brought up two children single-handedly," had disclosed a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 and a net pay of USD 6,186.60 for the relevant period, along with professional qualifications including a BCA, MCA, PMP and SAFe certifications. The court observed that her "only excuse" was that she was "living under extreme financial strain due to exorbitant cost of living abroad," a plea it did not find persuasive.

"In our view, this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal," the bench held, adding that she had "more than sufficient income at her disposal, which is proved from the documents placed on record by the Applicant herself."

The court also separately noted that the wife's own interim maintenance application before the Family Court had earlier been rejected and was never challenged, weakening her case for similar relief before the appellate forum.

Explaining the scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which such interim relief is claimed, the bench clarified that the provision exists to ensure that a financially weaker litigant is not left unable to defend matrimonial proceedings for want of means. "The very object of Section 24 is that, the financially weaker party should be able to defend the proceedings ably and is not left in a vulnerable financial position throughout the proceedings," the order stated. Since the wife could not be described as the weaker party on facts, the court held she had "failed to make out a case for grant of her prayer."

The interim application seeking Rs. 1 lakh monthly maintenance was accordingly rejected, though the substantive appeal on permanent alimony remains pending before the court.

Advocate Medha Jondhale, along with Anand Jondhale and Rajnandini Jondhale, appeared for the applicant-wife, while advocate Abhijit Sarwate appeared for the respondent-husband.

Case Title: Rajni Pravin Kumar Shete vs. Pravin Kumar Janardan Shete

Date of Order: July 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Tags: