The Bombay High Court has reduced the interim maintenance payable by a husband to his wife and minor son from ₹50,000 to ₹25,000 per month, observing that when both spouses are earning, financial responsibilities cannot fall entirely on one party. The Court also stressed that maintaining an expensive lifestyle should be a shared responsibility and directed the Family Court to decide the pending maintenance case within nine months.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a challenge filed by Prashant Lunawat against an interim order passed by the Family Court in Mumbai on January 30, 2025. The Family Court had directed him to pay ₹50,000 every month as interim maintenance to his wife, Khushboo Jain, and their minor son with effect from October 30, 2021, while proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained pending.
Before the High Court, the husband submitted that he had earlier worked as a Chartered Accountant in Mumbai but lost his employment during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to him, he later shifted to his native place in Madhya Pradesh and resumed practice there with reduced earnings. He also argued that he was paying EMIs on two residential flats in Andheri and Panvel, besides supporting his parents and meeting maintenance obligations.
He further offered to pay ₹25,000 per month if his wife agreed to shift to the Panvel flat, enabling him to sell the Andheri property and clear maintenance arrears and loan liabilities.
On the other hand, the wife opposed the plea, contending that substantial maintenance arrears had accumulated and questioning the genuineness of the husband's reduced income. She also declined the proposal to relocate to the Panvel flat.
Court's Observations
Justice M.M. Sathaye noted that the dispute was still at the interim stage and the main maintenance proceedings had not yet been finally decided. The Court therefore avoided making findings that could prejudice either side regarding their matrimonial dispute.
The Court observed that the Family Court had not objectively assessed the husband's present income while fixing interim maintenance. It also found that the decline in income during the COVID-19 period could not be ignored merely because the litigation started later.
The Court observed,
"It cannot be said that there is no explanation for reduction in income," while referring to the widespread financial impact of the pandemic on businesses and professions across the country.
Justice Sathaye also examined the financial burden arising from the housing loans. The Court noted that the husband alone was paying EMIs for both properties while the wife was not contributing towards those payments.
In one of the key observations, the Court remarked:
"If lifestyle is to be maintained, both parties must contribute."
The Court further observed that a spouse expecting to continue living at a premium location without sharing the financial burden could not insist that the other spouse alone bear both the housing loan liabilities and maintenance obligations.
The High Court also commented on educational expenses of the child. It observed that when both parents are earning and expected to contribute, decisions regarding the child's school and related expenses should not be taken unilaterally by one parent without consulting the other who is expected to bear part of the cost.
The bench observed,
"Decisions about choice of school, its location and location-dependent fees cannot be taken unilaterally without consent of the party who is supposed to pay."
Court's Decision
After considering the facts, the Bombay High Court set aside the Family Court's interim order directing payment of ₹50,000 per month.
The Court modified the interim maintenance to ₹25,000 per month payable to the wife and son from October 30, 2021, until the final disposal of the maintenance proceedings. It clarified that the amount paid would remain subject to adjustment after the Family Court delivers its final decision.
The Court also directed the husband to clear arrears calculated on the revised amount within 12 weeks, failing which the original Family Court order would automatically revive.
Further, it instructed the Family Court to dispose of the pending maintenance application within nine months and directed both parties to cooperate for its early conclusion.
Case Details
Case Title: Prashant Lunawat v. Khushboo Jain & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2549 of 2025
Judge: Justice M.M. Sathaye
Decision Date: 24 July 2026
