The Bombay High Court has recently observed that a woman can be entitled to maintenance even if she lives in the matrimonial house.
“The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child,” the order reads.
A single-judge bench of Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing a plea filed by the husband challenging the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The couple got married in 2012 as per Hindu religion and has a 10-year-old son. Due to marital discord between the parties, they separated in November 2021.
The husband said she deserted him without any justifiable reason, and despite his efforts, he could not convince her to live with him. Therefore, he filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
On an application filed by the wife seeking maintenance, the family court directed the man to pay Rs 15,000 per month to her, and Rs 10,000 per month to his minor son.
Advocate Dilip Devadiga, representing the husband, argued that the woman is residing in the matrimonial house owned by the husband, and, therefore, does not require any amount towards rent.
Devadiga further said the husband had an EMI of Rs 60,000, and was paying rent of Rs 6,500. He submitted that the wife was earning Rs 10,000 per month through freelancing.
Advocate Vinay Kate, representing the wife, contended that the gross salary of the husband is Rs 1,23,085.
Kate pointed out that the husband, in the affidavit, admitted to spending Rs 1,05,000 per year towards school fees of the son, Rs 52,200 towards the school bus, books and stationery expenses, Rs 5,000 for private tuition, and other expenses of Rs 40,000 on the child. Therefore, he stressed that the husband was capable of spending Rs 5 lakh a year.
The high court agreed with the contentions of the wife, and stated that the maintenance awarded by the trial judge is neither oppressive nor unendurable for the husband.
“…considering the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and minor son are parameters to be considered while determining the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the quantum of interim maintenance to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself and the minor son in reasonable comfort. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Judge is neither oppressive nor is it unendurable for the Petitioner/husband and there is no hardship caused to him,” the order reads.
Comments
0 comment