Bombay High Court Enhances Wife’s Monthly Maintenance From ₹50K To ₹3.5 Lakh After Assessing Husband’s Financial Capacity & Lifestyle

The Court was hearing cross appeals filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, with both parties challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The appellant-wife contended that the amount awarded was inadequate given the standard of living during the marriage.

A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan determined that the respondent-husband’s financial disclosures were inconsistent with the material on record, and held: “Bearing in mind the objective of welfare of a divorced wife that underlies the duty to pay maintenance under the HMA, we are of the considered opinion that even assuming the findings on merits by the Learned Family Court for the grant of divorce are entirely correct, the maintenance awarded is simply paltry and not commensurate at all with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly in Rajnesh vs. Neha”.

Petitioner appeared in person while Advocate Rajat Dhedia represented the respondent.

Background

The parties lived together for approximately sixteen years and have children from the marriage. During this period, they resided within a household connected to a large and closely held family business enterprise.

The appellant-wife asserted that the marital lifestyle included substantial expenditure and financial privileges that could not be reconciled with the modest income declared by the respondent-husband.

Before the Family Court, the respondent-husband relied heavily on his Income Tax Returns to assert limited means. The Family Court fixed monthly maintenance at ₹50,000.

The appellant-wife sought enhancement, contending that the declared income did not accurately reflect the real financial position arising from the wider family business. The respondent-husband maintained that the maintenance awarded was sufficient and that the appellant-wife had independent earnings.

Court’s Observation

The Bombay High Court examined the structure of the family business in which the respondent-husband was a participant. The Bench observed that in family-run enterprises, distribution of taxable income among individual members is not always indicative of the actual financial benefit that supports the household and funds its lifestyle.

In examining the evidence of Mukesh’s ongoing lifestyle, the Court found clear contradictions between his sworn statements and his actual expenditure. Referring to his conduct during the litigation period, the Court observed that “it can be seen that Mukesh has been partying, trekking and holidaying during the period of litigation in a manner that would firmly undermine his claims of earning a mere Rs. 6 lakhs per annum (Rs. 50,000 per month).”

The Bench also relied on photographs from his birthday celebrations, noting that the visual record revealed “sporting Kenzo t-shirts… a man claiming to earn just about Rs. 50,000 per month… would ill-afford a top luxury clothing brand – a simple crew neck t-shirt could cost upwards of Rs. 15,000 per piece.”

Importantly, the Court clarified that the issue was not a moral judgment on lifestyle choices, but dishonesty in financial disclosure, stating that “There is nothing to be judgmental or inappropriate about throwing a milestone birthday party… What does not appeal to us… is the act of contemporaneously lying on oath about being a man of no means… and asking for a low-end maintenance… to be stayed.

The Court held that the respondent-husband’s declared income could not be the sole basis for determining maintenance when the record indicated access to financial resources far exceeding the disclosed figures. The Bench noted that the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage was supported by financial arrangements of the larger family enterprise and that these circumstances could not be ignored.

The Bench further observed that the appellant-wife had lived for many years in a household where considerable financial means were available, and she was now required to support herself and her daughter with limited income.

The Court held that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates an assessment of the financial capacity of the spouse and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and that maintenance should reflect dignity and reasonable comfort.

After reviewing the record, the Court found that the Family Court failed to take into account the full financial context, including the lifestyle maintained during the marriage and the resources flowing from the family business. The respondent-husband’s declared income was held to be insufficient to determine true financial capacity.

Conclusion

The High Court enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to the appellant-wife to ₹3,50,000, holding that the amount must be consistent with the financial resources realistically available to the respondent-husband and the standard of living during the marriage.

The appeals were accordingly disposed of in these terms.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:47883-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: In Person

Respondent: Advocate Rajat Dhedia

Click here to read/download Judgment