Estranged wife entitled to standard of living on par with marital home: HC

Merely because the woman was earning, she could not be deprived of support from her husband to maintain the same standard of living that she was accustomed to in her marital home, the court said

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has upheld a family court order directing a Dombivli resident to pay ₹15,000 per month to his estranged wife towards maintenance during the pendency of their divorce petition. The single judge bench of justice Manjusha Deshpande upheld the August 2023 order passed by the family court at Bandra, noting that merely because the woman was earning, she could not be deprived of support from her husband to maintain the same standard of living that she was accustomed to in her marital home.

(Shutterstock)

According to the petition filed by the 31-year-old Dombivli resident, the couple had married in November 2012 and their relations were strained as his wife threw tantrums and ill-treated him. In May 2015, his wife left her marital home and started residing with her parents, whereas in June 2019, he filed a petition before the Bandra family court seeking divorce on various grounds. The order directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month was passed in response to a plea filed by his estranged wife.

Before the high court, the Dombivli resident claimed that his gross monthly salary was ₹65,774 and net monthly salary was ₹57,935. He further claimed that his monthly expenses were around ₹54,000 and he was not in a position to pay ₹15,000 per month to his wife towards maintenance, as ordered by the family court.

The petitioner also mentioned that his wife was working, earning a handsome salary and also taking tuitions and was therefore not entitled to maintenance from him.

The court, however, noted that the petitioner’s salary slips showed that in 2022, his monthly salary was over ₹1.17 lakh while his father received a pension of ₹28,000 per month. The woman, on the other hand, earned a meagre ₹18,000 per month.

“There is huge disparity in the income of the petitioner and the respondent (wife),” the court said, noting that though the wife was earning, her income was not sufficient for her own maintenance since she had to travel a long distance for her job.

The court also noted that she was staying with her parents, which she could not do indefinitely. “Because of her meagre earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother along with her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them…In such an income, she is not in a position to live a decent life,” the court said, dismissing the Dombivli resident’s petition and upholding the interim maintenance order.