The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has ruled that a financially independent wife, employed as a government doctor, is not entitled to monthly maintenance from her husband under the domestic violence law. However, the court made it clear that the father’s responsibility towards the minor child remains untouched.
The decision came in a criminal revision filed by a pediatrician from Latur, challenging earlier orders that had granted maintenance to his wife and son.
Background of the Case
The parties married in May 2010 and have a son from the wedlock. Due to strained relations, the wife moved out and later approached the Magistrate’s court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She alleged domestic abuse and sought monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 for herself and the child.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Special Exam for BSc Student Denied Admit Card Due to Portal Error
In 2019, the trial court granted ₹12,000 per month to the wife, ₹10,000 per month to the son, ₹7,000 towards rent, along with compensation and litigation costs. This order was later upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal.
The husband then approached the High Court, arguing that his wife was highly qualified, employed as a medical officer through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, and earning a substantial salary. According to him, she was financially self-sufficient and did not require spousal maintenance.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the husband stressed that the wife was drawing a gross monthly salary of over ₹1.38 lakh and was also receiving house rent allowance. He submitted that both the lower courts had ignored this material evidence and wrongly awarded maintenance to a self-reliant spouse.
On the other hand, the wife’s counsel relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Rajnesh vs Neha, to argue that earning by itself does not bar a wife from claiming maintenance. The submission was that maintenance should allow a wife to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage.
Court’s Observations
Justice Abhay S. Waghwase began by underlining the limited scope of revision jurisdiction. The court noted that it could interfere only if the earlier orders were illegal, irregular, or clearly perverse.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the judge acknowledged that an earning wife can still claim maintenance. However, the key question, the court said, is whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself with dignity and in a manner comparable to her marital lifestyle.
After examining the salary slips and affidavits, the bench found that the wife was a state government employee earning ₹1,38,192 per month. The court noted that she had access to housing, transport, and other basic facilities, and that her own documents showed she could sustain herself independently.
“The material on record clearly indicates that the respondent wife has sufficient income and resources to maintain herself decently and with dignity,” the court observed.
At the same time, the judge drew a clear distinction between the wife’s claim and the child’s needs. The husband had already stated before the court that he was willing to continue bearing the expenses of his son.
Decision
Allowing the revision in part, the High Court set aside the maintenance awarded to the wife. The order granting her ₹12,000 per month was quashed.
However, the court upheld the maintenance of ₹10,000 per month awarded to the minor son. All other parts of the original order, including reliefs unrelated to the wife’s maintenance, were left undisturbed.
“The husband shall continue to pay ₹10,000 per month towards the maintenance of the son,” the bench directed while modifying the earlier orders.
The judgment brings clarity on how courts may assess maintenance claims where the spouse seeking support is financially independent and securely employed
Case Title: Deepak Gangadhar Dadge vs. Vijaya w/o Deepak Dadge & Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 2024
Pronounced On: 17 January 2026
Advocates:
- For Applicant: Mr. A. A. Yadkikar
- For Respondents: Mr. V. D. Gunale
