Maintenance Payable To Wife & Children Is Need-Based And Not A Proportionate Share Of Husband’s Income: Bombay High Court
The High Court held that maintenance cannot be awarded as a proportionate share of such income but must be determined with reference to the reasonable needs of the wife and children, their standard of living, and the overall financial circumstances of the parties.
The Bombay High Court has held that maintenance payable to a wife and children is not to be computed as a fixed proportion of the husband’s income, but must be aligned with the reasonable needs of the dependants and the standard of living enjoyed by them.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance to the wife and minor children in proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes between the parties.
The petition arose from a challenge to the quantum of interim maintenance, the interpretation of the amount awarded to the children, and the date from which maintenance was directed to be paid
The matter was decided by Justice Manjusha Deshpande, who observed that “assuming without admitting, even if the amount of income disclosed by the respondent is more than his actual income, it does not mean that a proportionate part of his income is to be awarded to the wife and children. The maintenance has to be in proportion with the needs of the children.”
Background
The parties were married in April 2014 and have two minor daughters. The wife, a homemaker educated up to the 12th standard, initiated proceedings seeking maintenance after matrimonial disputes arose between the parties.
During the pendency of the proceedings, interim consent terms were entered into, under which the husband agreed to pay a monthly amount towards the expenses of the wife and children. Subsequently, the Family Court partly allowed the wife’s interim maintenance application and directed payment of maintenance to the wife and daughters.
Aggrieved by the quantum and the manner in which the Family Court had determined maintenance, the wife approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance and clarification regarding the operative directions.
Court’s Observation
The Bombay High Court examined the settled principles governing the grant of interim maintenance and emphasised that the determination of maintenance requires a holistic assessment of the financial capacity of the husband, the reasonable needs of the wife and children, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
The Court noted that the income disclosed by the husband in his affidavit of assets and liabilities was not disputed. However, it clarified that even if such disclosed income were assumed to be higher than the actual income, maintenance cannot be mechanically calculated as a fixed proportion of that income.
The Court held that maintenance must be proportionate to the needs of the children and dependants, and not to the total income of the earning spouse. It was observed that “after determining the relevant factors about the financial status and income of the Respondent, comparing standard of living and the reasonable needs of the Petitioner and their two daughters, the amount admissible towards maintenance, can be fixed”.
The Court took note of the material placed on record by the husband showing that he was already bearing substantial expenses of the children, including school fees, transport, and extracurricular activities, in addition to paying monthly maintenance amounts.
Referring to the wife’s claim of monthly expenses, the Court observed that while the wife had asserted high monthly expenditure, she had not provided a detailed break-up substantiating the figures claimed. The Court held that claims of maintenance must be assessed in the context of admitted income, proven expenses, and supporting material.
On the interpretation of the Family Court’s operative directions, the High Court held that the word “each” used in the order must be read to mean that maintenance was awarded individually to the wife and to each of the two daughters, and not collectively to the children.
The Court further reiterated the settled position that maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of application, relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and reaffirmed subsequently. It held that the Family Court’s failure to grant maintenance from the date of application, without assigning reasons, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
Conclusion
The High Court held that while maintenance is not to be awarded as a proportionate share of the husband’s income, the Family Court had erred in its assessment of the needs of the wife and children and in the interpretation of its own operative directions.
Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed. The impugned order of the Family Court was modified by holding that the wife and each of the two daughters were individually entitled to maintenance of ₹50,000 per month from the date of application, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid under interim arrangements
Cause Title: MAK v. AKK (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:54818)
Appearances
Petitioner: Samarth Moray, Shivani Shinde, Advocates
Respondent: Vikramaditya Deshmukh, Priya Chaubey, Sapana Rachure, Advocates, S.S. Kaushik, APP