Wife Earning Substantially More Than Husband, Can't Seek Maintenance Claiming Cost Of Living Abroad Is Exorbitant: Bombay High Court
A woman who earns 'substantially' more than her husband and lives in a foreign country cannot seek maintenance from him only on the ground that the cost of living abroad is 'exorbitant', held the Bombay High Court recently while rejecting a US-based woman's plea seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh from her husband. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha...
A woman who earns 'substantially' more than her husband and lives in a foreign country cannot seek maintenance from him only on the ground that the cost of living abroad is 'exorbitant', held the Bombay High Court recently while rejecting a US-based woman's plea seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh from her husband.
A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the woman's interim application, by which she had challenged a Family Court's judgment by which the court while dissolving the couple's marriage, had only ordered the husband to pay Rs 25,000 towards the cost of litigation. The court had granted custody of the elder son to the husband and the younger one was to remain with the wife.
The bench noted that since 2011, the woman was living in the US, holding professional qualifications of BCA, MCA, PMP and SAFe Certifications. The judges noted that at present the woman was employed with Mark Infotech Inc, New Jersey, and was earning gross monthly salary of USD 8,700. Whereas, the husband, having a non-technical background with a basic course of SAP, was presently employed in the IT sector. However, due to increasing competition and automation brought by the Artificial Intelligence (AI), the husband, the judges noted, was under constant fear of losing his job at any moment.
The bench noted that the woman looked after the younger son, while the husband funded for the older one's education in Australia and that the husband had additional responsibility of looking after his old parents and also his second wife, with whom he married post divorce with the petitioner woman.
The petitioner wife argued that since she has been looking at the financial expenses of her son single-handedly, there was no surplus income left with her leading to financial strains.
"Although she has stated that there is no disposable surplus income due to various expenses which are required to be incurred by her, we do not find any favour in her reason for claiming interim maintenance from the husband. Her only excuse is that she is living under extreme financial strain due to exorbitant cost of living abroad. In our view, this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal," the judges held in the order passed on July 17.
The bench pointed out that the woman was a qualified professional, residing abroad since last 15 years, who has brought up two children single- handedly. Even presently, the judges said, she has more than sufficient income at her disposal, which is proved from the documents that she placed on record. The bench also took into consideration, the fact that she has been refused permanent alimony by the Family Court, while granting divorce.
The appeal against the said judgment is yet to be heard and decided finally by the High Court, the bench noted.
The bench further pointed out that section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contemplates grant of interim maintenance, pending the matrimonial proceedings and that the said provision itself contemplates that if the Petitioner, be it wife or husband has no independent, sufficient means for his or her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, then the Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner the expenses of proceedings and monthly expenses.
"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. In view of the scope of Section 24, in our view, the Applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of her prayer in the Application," the judges opined.
With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea.
Appearance:
Advocates Medha Jondhale, Anand Jondhale and Rajnandini Jondhale appeared for the Wife.
Advocate Abhijit Sarwate represented the Husband.
Case Title: RPKS vs PKJS (Interim Application 3968 of 2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 339