Chennai, August 22: The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife who is already receiving substantial income from her investments and properties cannot demand additional interim maintenance from her husband. However, the Court upheld the family court's earlier direction for the husband to continue paying maintenance and educational expenses for their son.
The case arose after the husband, challenged a family court order that required him to pay ₹30,000 per month each to his wife, and their son. While he did not contest the maintenance awarded to the son, he argued that his wife was financially independent and therefore not entitled to support under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Orders 86-Year-Old Veteran to Pay ₹15,000 Monthly Maintenance to Wife
Justice P.B. Balaji, delivering the order, noted that the wife was a Director of a private company and had received dividends exceeding ₹15 lakh annually for the past three financial years. She also owned valuable immovable properties in Chennai and Thiruporur.
"The object of Section 24 is to provide interim maintenance to ensure a reasonable standard of living for a spouse without independent income. In this case, the respondent is already possessed of substantial earnings and property, making additional maintenance unnecessary," the Court observed.
The judge also pointed out that the wife’s act of re-transferring property to her father during the proceedings "does not appear to be bona fide" and seemed aimed at avoiding objections about her wealth.
Arguments and Counterarguments
The husband’s counsel argued that the wife deliberately suppressed her income by even approaching the National Company Law Tribunal to restrain release of dividends, only to strengthen her claim for maintenance. He further highlighted that she was affluent enough to meet her expenses.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Directs Co-operative Societies to Return Temple Funds for Renovation
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel contended that the dividends were spent entirely on their son’s education, including costly NEET coaching, and that her income was not regular. He insisted that she was entitled to maintenance to ensure dignity and independence.
After considering both sides, the High Court partly allowed the husband’s revision petition. The order granting ₹30,000 monthly maintenance to the wife was set aside, but the maintenance awarded to the son, along with additional educational expenses already paid, was upheld.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside APTEL and KERC Orders in Chamundeshwari Electricity Case
Quoting Supreme Court precedents, Justice Balaji emphasised that maintenance must be fair and realistic but cannot be extended to a spouse who is already financially secure.
"I do not see that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle," the Court remarked.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Case No: CRP.No.2590 of 2025
