Wife with Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance from Husband’: Madras HC

[26/08, 09:21] Sekarreporter: https://guwahatiplus.com/india/wife-with-substantial-income-does-not-need-interim-maintenance-from-husband-madras-hc
[26/08, 09:22] Sekarreporter: ”

‘Wife with Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance from Husband’: Madras HC
G Plus News (Aug 25, 2025)

India
The Madras High Court. | Credit: Raki_Man on Wikimedia Commons

GUWAHATI: The Madras High Court has set aside a family court order directing a man to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife during the pendency of his divorce petition. Justice PB Balaji ruled that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is meant to ensure that a spouse has sufficient income to sustain a comfortable lifestyle, and not merely to survive.

ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Quashes CIC Order Directing Disclosure of PM Modi’s Degree Details

According to a LiveLaw report published on Monday, August 25, the court found that the wife owned immovable properties in her name and was earning a substantial income through dividends. Observing that she was already in a position to maintain herself, the high court said there was no requirement for further interim maintenance.

“The object of Section 24 is only to provide interim maintenance to enable a spouse to live a comfortable lifestyle,” the court observed. “I do not see that the respondent lacks such sufficient income already, warranting additional monies from the petitioner.”

The order came in response to a civil revision petition filed by the husband challenging the family court’s earlier directive. He argued that the order was mechanical and passed without due consideration of the facts. He submitted that his wife was financially affluent, serving as a company director, and had even approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to restrain release of dividends. He further pointed out that she had settled some property in her father’s name during the proceedings, which he claimed was mala fide to strengthen her maintenance claim.

The husband clarified that he was not contesting the family court’s order requiring him to pay interim maintenance for his son, including expenses for NEET coaching, and had already complied with those payments. His sole challenge was against the directive to support his wife.

The wife, however, contended that her dividend income was spent on the child’s education and argued that the property settlement was genuine, as the property was originally bought in her mother’s name with her father being the ostensible owner. The court, however, rejected this claim, noting that the timing of the settlement suggested it was intended to avoid objections raised by the husband.

Holding that the wife already possessed sufficient means to lead a comfortable lifestyle, the Madras High Court modified the family court’s order and set aside the directive on interim maintenance for her.”