INTRODUCTION
The Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 12 December 2025, stated that the maintenance for the wife and children shall be determined by their needs rather than a fixed or proportionate share of the husband’s total income. The bench comprising Justice Manjusha Deshpande emphasized that even if the husband earns a higher salary, it does not automatically entitle the wife to ask for a division of the husband’s income without having supporting claims of their expenses.
BACKGROUND
The case arose as a matrimonial dispute between the couple, who had been married since 2014 and had two minor daughters. Later, having certain issues in the marriage, the husband filed for the divorce decree while the wife filed for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court had ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 as maintenance. However, a dispute arose over the sum. There was confusion on whether the sum was collective for both the daughters and the wife, or if it was 50,000 per individual.
Subsequently, the wife challenged this order and asked for an enhancement of maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000 per child, citing the husband’s income to be Rs. 3.98 lakhs. She also contended that an erroneous decision was made by the Family Court in making the maintenance effective from the date of the order rather than the date of the application. The husband, on the other hand, opposed the enhancement, arguing that he was already directly bearing the children’s school fees and other essential expenses.
KEY POINTS
The court, after listening to the claims of the parties, concluded the following
- Maintenance
Maintenance is need-based rather than a fixed amount. A higher pay/income of a spouse cannot be a ground for asking a higher maintenance if the same is not proved in court. In this case, the court found the claim of Rs. 1 Lakh to be an inflated claim of maintenance and rejected the plea.
- Determination of the word ‘each.’
The court stated that the use of the word each by the Family Court meant the daughters and wife as individuals rather than holding them together. Thus, the court asked the husband to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs as maintenance.
- Date of Maintenance
The court, relying on the case of Rajesh vs Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569), stated that the claim of maintenance was to be paid from the date of application rather than the date of the order.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The court clarified the ambiguity in the use of the word each. Further, it also clarified the date of maintenance to be from the date of application in order to prevent prejudice to the claimants caused by the typical delays in judicial proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The Bombay High Court partially allowed the writ petition, upholding the fact that maintenance is intended to fulfil a legitimate need rather than be used as a device to divide a portion of one’s wealth. Although the court held that payment of ₹1 lakh to each of the children was exorbitant, it took care of their welfare by directing the husband to pay the above-said amounts from the date of receipt of the application, thereby upholding the rights of the parties involved in the suit.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Sharanya M
