Working Wife With Sufficient Income Not Entitled to Interim Maintenance Under Section 24 HMA: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has declined to interfere with a Family Court order refusing interim maintenance to a working wife, holding that where the wife is financially independent and has sufficient means to maintain herself, the statutory requirement under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not satisfied. The Court held that interim maintenance is not an automatic entitlement and depends on a clear demonstration of inability to sustain oneself during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande partly allowed a writ petition filed by the wife challenging a Family Court order which had denied her interim maintenance but awarded Rs.15,000 per month to the minor daughter.

While upholding the denial of maintenance to the wife, the High Court modified the order to direct that the maintenance awarded to the daughter shall be payable from the date of the application and not from the date of the order.

The parties were married in December 2010 and have a daughter born in 2014.

The wife approached the Family Court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and filed an interim application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming Rs.25,000 per month each for herself and the child, along with rent and litigation expenses.

The Family Court refused maintenance to the wife but granted Rs.15,000 per month to the child from the date of the order, which led to the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Before the High Court, the wife contended that the Family Court had erred in denying her maintenance by drawing adverse inferences regarding her income and by relying on isolated entries in her bank statements.

She argued that the husband had suppressed his true income, resigned from employment to avoid liability, and failed to comply with the disclosure norms laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. It was also urged that even a working wife is entitled to interim maintenance, and that maintenance to the child ought to have been granted from the date of the application.

The respondent husband opposed the petition, contending that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and that the Family Court had taken a reasoned view based on affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties.

He submitted that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires the applicant to establish lack of sufficient means, which the wife had failed to do in the present case.

The High Court agreed with the respondent on this aspect. The Court noted that the wife was employed as a Deputy Manager in a reputed bank and had disclosed a monthly salary of Rs.28,032 in her affidavit of assets and liabilities.

The Court further observed that bank statements placed on record revealed additional sources of income, including earnings from trading, mutual funds, and dividend income, with substantial amounts reflected in her demat and bank accounts.

The Court found merit in the Family Court’s reasoning that the wife’s claim of reduced income was not credible. It noted that while the wife asserted that her salary had declined over the years, the record showed a salary credit of Rs.61,596 in 2018 while she was employed with the same organisation.

The High Court held that it was not possible that her income could have declined so significantly over time, and that the Family Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference on this count.

Emphasising the statutory scheme of Section 24, the Court held that interim maintenance can be granted only when two conditions are satisfied: first, that the applicant lacks sufficient means to maintain herself, and second, that the non-applicant has sufficient income to support the applicant.

In the present case, the Court held that the wife failed to discharge the primary burden of proving her inability to maintain herself, given her educational qualifications, employment, and multiple sources of income.

The bench also upheld the refusal to grant amounts towards alternate accommodation and litigation expenses, observing that where the wife is financially independent and gainfully employed, such reliefs cannot be claimed as a matter of course.

On the issue of maintenance for the minor daughter, the Court held that the Family Court had correctly assessed the child’s expenses and reasonably fixed the father’s contribution at Rs.15,000 per month, keeping in view the principle laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha that where both parents are earning, child-related expenses must be shared proportionately.

However, the High Court found fault with the Family Court in directing payment from the date of the order rather than from the date of the application.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court held that maintenance to a dependent child must ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application, as delay in adjudication cannot prejudice the claimant. Considering that there was a gap of nearly four years between the filing of the application and its disposal, the High Court modified the order to that limited extent.

Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed, with the High Court directing that the maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month awarded to the daughter shall be payable from the date of filing of the interim application, while affirming the denial of interim maintenance, rent and litigation expenses to the wife.

Case Title: Deepti Mohan Das v. Avinash Krishnamurthy

Bench: Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Date of Judgment: 9.12.2025