Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim maintenance to a woman living in the United States, observing that she earns significantly more than her estranged husband and is financially capable of supporting herself.
The woman had approached the court seeking rs 1 lakh per month as interim maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. However, the court noted that she was employed in the US and earning around USD 8,700 a month, far exceeding her husband’s income in India.
While dismissing the plea, the High Court said maintenance is meant to provide financial assistance to a spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain themselves. It added that the law cannot be used to compensate for a higher cost of living simply because a person chooses to reside in another country.
The bench observed that the woman had a stable source of income and had failed to demonstrate any financial hardship that would justify awarding interim maintenance. It also pointed out that her earnings were substantially higher than those of her husband, making her claim untenable under the circumstances.
The ruling reiterates that maintenance is not an automatic right. Instead, courts are expected to consider the financial position of both spouses, including their income, earning capacity, liabilities and overall ability to support themselves before deciding such claims.
Legal experts believe the judgment reflects the courts growing emphasis on financial independence in matrimonial disputes. They say the decision is likely to be cited in future cases where both spouses are employed, particularly when the person seeking maintenance is earning more than the other.
At the same time, the judgment does not change the settled legal position that a working spouse may still be entitled to maintenance if their income is insufficient to meet reasonable living expenses. Indian courts continue to decide such cases on their individual facts, taking into account the financial circumstances of both parties rather than relying solely on whether one spouse is employed.
The decision adds to a series of judgments that underline the principle that maintenance laws are designed to prevent financial hardship, not to ensure parity in lifestyle or income between estranged spouses.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Mandates Higher Maintenance Fees for Larger Apartments
