Bombay HC Upholds Maintenance For Working Wife, Says Earning Woman Still Entitled To Same Standard Of Living From Estranged Husband

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has said that merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of the financial support from her estranged husband as she has to maintain her standard of living.

The court noted that the wife is entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation.

Justice Manjusha Deshpande, on June 18, dismissed the petition filed by a man challenging an order of the family Court in August 2023 directing him to pay Rs 15,000 maintenance per month to his wife.

He contended that his wife was earning over Rs 25,000 per month, including salary, tuition fees and interest from Fixed Deposits, hence does not require high maintenance from him. Moreover, he claimed that he earned Rs 57,000 per month, out of which his monthly expenses were Rs 54,000 including taking care of his dependent ailing parents. Hence, he claimed, he was unable to shell out Rs 15,000 per month to wife.

However, the woman informed the court that the man had suppressed his true income, which was over Rs 1 lakh per month as a Senior Manager/ Marketing Executive with a prominent retail chain. Besides, his father was receiving Rs 28,000 as pension as he retired from municipal school.

The court noted that although the wife is earning, the income is not sufficient for her own maintenance since she has to travel a long distance for her job. In such an income she is not in a position to live a decent life, HC said.

“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,” Justice Deshpande said. It noted that the man’s income is far more than the woman’s with no financial responsibilities.

Though the man claimed that wife has an additional income from the interest of the Fixed Deposits, the interest is “negligible” and even the income from tuition classes cannot be said to be a permanent source of income, the court remarked.

The court in its order noted that the woman was presently living with her parents and brother but cannot continue doing so indefinitely as the same may cause inconvenience and hardship to all of them.

Nagpur Riots: Bombay HC Grants Bail To 9 Accused In Aurangzeb Tomb Protest Violence Case

The man’s parents are in fact not dependent on him as the father is getting a monthly pension of Rs 28,000, the court said. “There is a huge disparity in the income of the Petitioner and the Respondent, which cannot be compared,” the judge said while upholding the family court’s order.