Bombay High Court Delivers Landmark Maintenance Ruling
In a significant verdict, the Bombay High Court has dramatically increased the monthly interim maintenance for a Pune-based wife from Rs 50,000 to Rs 3.5 lakh – a seven-fold enhancement. The court delivered this decision on Tuesday while strongly criticizing the estranged husband for approaching the court with "unclean hands and lack of credibility."
The Sixteen-Year Marriage and Legal Battle
The couple had entered matrimony in 1997 and separated in 2013. The husband initiated divorce proceedings in 2015, which the Pune family court granted in 2023 on grounds of cruelty. However, the High Court stayed this divorce decree when the wife appealed. Currently, cross-appeals from both parties are pending before the High Court.
The division bench comprising Justices B P Colabawala and Somasekhar Sundaresan emphasized that the family court had failed to consider a crucial factor: "The marriage lasted 16 years, with the prime of life having been invested in the marriage." The bench clarified that all its observations were prima facie while the appeals remain pending.
Hidden Wealth and Questionable Credibility
The High Court found the husband, described as a "globe-trotter," had deliberately concealed his true financial status. He had made "positive mis-statements" about being unable to pay even the original maintenance amount of Rs 50,000.
The court noted the husband comes from a family with substantial business interests. The wife's assessment that the family business sits on a land bank worth over Rs 1,000 crore was found "quite convincing" based on the Group's own website claims. The bench observed that even if the husband held just a 10% share, his stake would exceed Rs 100 crores, making him a man of "undeniably powerful financial means."
The judgment highlighted contradictory behavior: "The husband adorns designer t-shirts but questions the wife's monthly expenses of Rs 1 lakh as 'exorbitant' amounts. He, himself a trekker, faults his daughter, who also treks, for spending Rs 8,000 on fitness and yoga classes."
Court Rejects Patriarchal Arguments
The husband had argued against enhancement, claiming that despite having no source of income, the estranged wife spent on yoga, fitness trainers, baking, and music classes for their daughter. The High Court firmly rejected this reasoning, "not just for its patriarchal tenor."
The bench elaborated: "The contention is that a woman divorced from her husband should curtail what her daughter should get, but a woman choosing not to leave her husband can expect more. That a mother dares to work hard and even claim to depend on her own brother to give the daughter a decent life, cannot be a disqualification for expecting that the daughter's expenses for a decent standard of living be met by the father."
The court emphasized that the wife, who argued her own case, is entitled to live with dignity and provide her daughter with a comparable lifestyle. The family court had not granted any separate maintenance for the daughter.
Substantial Enhancement and Future Implications
Disposing of the interim maintenance application, the High Court ruled that pending the cross-appeals against divorce, maintenance must align with the expenses for the child's potential professional education. The court found the wife's plea for enhanced maintenance not just reasonable but "frugal" considering the standard of living their child should reasonably expect.
The judgment stated: "A reasonable estimation of the standard of living and lifestyle of the couple during their 16-year-long marriage would need to be informed by the lifestyle of a man of means on such a scale. There is no reason to discount such a standard of living, with maintenance being fixed at a measly sum of Rs 50,000 per month for a wife of 16 years."
The husband, represented by advocate Dushyant Purekar, had argued technicalities about incorrect law invocation. The High Court dismissed this, noting family courts can treat applications as interim maintenance pleas given the socio-welfare nature of the legislation.
In a subsequent development, the wife's lawyer Edith Dey confirmed filing a caveat before the Supreme Court to preempt any challenge to this High Court order.
