The Bombay High Court has held that a woman who is earning much more than her husband and has been living abroad cannot seek interim maintenance from him just because the cost of living in that country is high.

Court’s Decision:

The Court refused the request of a woman living in the United States who had asked for ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance from her husband while her matrimonial appeal is pending.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed her interim application.

Family Court Order:

Earlier, the Family Court had dissolved the marriage under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It had rejected her request for permanent alimony and awarded her ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses. The Family Court also granted custody of the elder son to the husband, while the younger son remained with the wife.

Woman’s Arguments:

The woman challenged the Family Court’s decision before the High Court. During the appeal, she sought interim maintenance.

She told the Court that although she was working in the United States, she was under serious financial pressure. She said she was alone paying the expenses of the younger son, living in a rented one-bedroom apartment, and meeting the high cost of living in the US.

She also said that the restrictions attached to her H1B visa, uncertainty about whether she would continue to have a job, and the expenses of her son’s education left her with no disposable income. She further claimed that her husband was living a luxurious life, owned several immovable properties, and had enough money to pay maintenance.

Husband’s Reply:

The husband opposed the application. He argued that the issue of permanent alimony is already pending before the High Court in the appeal, and the wife cannot seek the same relief through an interim application.

He also said that the wife has been working in the United States since 2011 and is financially independent. Referring to her salary records, he pointed out that she is currently employed with Mark Infotech Inc., New Jersey, earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 and a net monthly salary of more than USD 6,100. He also submitted that the Family Court had already found that she earns much more than him.

Court’s Findings:

The High Court noted that the woman has been living in the United States since 2011. It also recorded that she is professionally qualified, holding BCA, MCA, PMP and SAFe certifications.

The Court referred to the salary documents produced by the woman herself and noted that she is employed with Mark Infotech Inc., New Jersey, earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 and a net monthly salary of around USD 6,186.

The Bench also considered the husband’s financial position.

It noted that he comes from a non-technical background and has only a basic SAP qualification. He is currently working in the IT sector but has said that increasing competition and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have left him constantly worried about losing his job.

The Court also noted that he is paying for the education of their elder son, who is studying in Australia, and is also supporting his elderly parents. After the divorce, he remarried in July 2024 and now has the responsibility of maintaining his second wife as well.

Court’s View:

Rejecting the woman’s argument that she needed maintenance because living in the United States is expensive, the Court observed:

“Although she has stated that there is no disposable surplus income due to various expenses which are required to be incurred by her, we do not find any favour in her reason for claiming interim maintenance from the Respondent-husband. Her only excuse is that she is living under extreme financial strain due to exorbitant cost of living abroad.”

The Bench further held:

“In our view, this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal.”

Why Section 24 Applies:

The Court also observed that the woman has been living abroad for nearly 15 years, had independently raised both children, and still earns more than enough to support herself, as shown by the documents she placed before the Court.

The Bench further noted that the Family Court had already refused her request for permanent alimony, and that decision is presently under challenge before the High Court.

It said that an application for interim maintenance has to be decided under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Section 24 Explained:

Explaining the purpose of the provision, the Court observed:

“Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contemplates grant of interim maintenance, pending the matrimonial proceedings. The Section itself contemplates that if the Respondent, be it wife or husband has no independent, sufficient means for his or her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, the respondent shall pay to the petitioner the expenses of proceedings and monthly expenses of such sum having regard to petitioner’s own income and income of respondent.”

The Bench further explained the purpose of the law:

“The very object of Section 24 is that, the financially weaker party should be able to defend the proceedings ably and is not left in a vulnerable financial position throughout the proceedings.”

Final Order:

Holding that the woman did not meet the requirements of Section 24, the Court concluded:

“In view of the scope of Section 24, in our view, the Applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of her prayer in the Application.”

The High Court therefore dismissed her application seeking ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance during the pendency of her appeal.

Case Details: Rajni Pravin Kumar Shete vs Pravin Kumar Janardan Shete (Interim Application No. 3968 of 2025)