The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim maintenance to a woman challenging a Family Court judgment denying her permanent alimony, holding that she failed to establish financial dependence on her former husband. The court observed that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is intended to protect a spouse who lacks sufficient independent means, a condition that was not met in the present case.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the wife against a Family Court judgment dated March 21, 2023, which dissolved the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. While granting divorce, the Family Court declined her request for permanent alimony, awarded custody of the elder son to the husband and the younger son to the wife, and directed the husband to pay litigation costs of ₹25,000. During the pendency of the appeal, the wife sought interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month.
The wife argued that the husband had failed to provide financial support despite having substantial assets and a comfortable lifestyle. She stated that she was residing in the United States, living in a rented apartment, bearing expenses for herself and the child in her custody, and facing financial pressure because of the high cost of living abroad. She also submitted that her employment situation was uncertain and that her retired parents were not in a position to assist her financially.
The husband opposed the application, contending that the wife had been employed in the United States since 2011, was financially independent, and was earning a significant salary. He also argued that the Family Court had already considered her earning capacity while rejecting her earlier claim for maintenance and that he was bearing the expenses of the elder son studying abroad, besides supporting his elderly parents.
Court's Observations
After examining the material placed on record, the Division Bench found that the wife continued to be employed with a company in New Jersey and was earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 with a net monthly income exceeding USD 6,100. The court also noted that she possessed professional qualifications, including BCA, MCA, PMP and SAFe certifications, demonstrating her ability to earn independently.
The bench observed that the wife's principal grievance was the high cost of living in the United States. However, it held that such circumstances alone could not justify a claim for interim maintenance.
The judges observed,
"The Applicant is a qualified professional... Even presently, she has more than sufficient income at her disposal." They further held that "this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal."
Explaining the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court said the provision is meant to assist a spouse who lacks sufficient independent income to support themselves and effectively pursue matrimonial proceedings. It is intended to prevent the financially weaker party from being placed at a disadvantage during litigation.
Decision
Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the wife had not established that she lacked sufficient independent means to maintain herself during the pendency of the appeal. Since the statutory requirements under Section 24 were not satisfied, the court rejected her plea for interim maintenance.
Accordingly, the Interim Application seeking ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: R P S v. Mr. P S
Case Number: Interim Application No. 3958 of 2025 in Family Court Appeal No. 54 of 2023
Judges: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
