The Bombay High Court has reduced the interim maintenance payable by a husband to his estranged wife and their son from ₹50,000 to ₹25,000 per month, observing that financial equality in a marriage requires both earning spouses to contribute towards household expenses rather than expecting one partner to shoulder the entire burden.
Justice M. M. Sathaye delivered the decision while hearing a petition filed by a chartered accountant who challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹50,000 every month as interim maintenance. The High Court found that the husband’s financial circumstances had changed significantly after the COVID-19 pandemic, making the earlier amount excessive.
Husband Claimed Severe Financial Strain
According to the case records, the husband had previously been employed in Mumbai with a substantial income and had purchased two residential flats—one in Andheri and another in Panvel—through housing loans. However, after losing his job during the pandemic, he shifted to his native town in Madhya Pradesh and started an independent accounting practice.
He informed the court that his earnings had reduced considerably while he continued to pay nearly ₹1 lakh every month towards home loan EMIs for both properties. He also stated that he was financially supporting his elderly parents and had accumulated maintenance arrears because of his reduced income.
Proposal to Sell Andheri Flat
The husband proposed that his wife and their school-going son move to the Panvel apartment so that the more valuable Andheri property could be sold. He argued that the sale proceeds would help clear pending maintenance dues and meet future financial obligations. He expressed willingness to continue paying ₹25,000 per month under this arrangement.
The wife, however, declined to relocate either to Panvel or to Madhya Pradesh, maintaining that the husband had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in Andheri.
Court Supports Sale of Property
The High Court observed that there was nothing improper in the husband’s request to sell an asset in order to manage mounting financial liabilities and comply with court-ordered maintenance obligations. The court noted that disposing of property to meet genuine financial commitments could not be viewed negatively when income had substantially fallen. (Law Trend – Legal News Network)
Wife’s Income Considered Relevant
While examining the parties’ financial positions, the court noted that the wife possessed an MBA degree and was employed, earning at least ₹15,000 per month when the Family Court passed its earlier order.
The High Court found that the Family Court had estimated the husband’s monthly income between ₹1 lakh and ₹1.5 lakh without adequate financial calculations or supporting evidence. It held that the husband’s reduced earning capacity following the pandemic deserved proper consideration. (Law Trend – Legal News Network)
Shared Responsibility in Marriage
The court further observed that the wife was not contributing towards the housing loan repayments for either apartment. It emphasised that where both spouses are earning, financial responsibilities—including expenses relating to housing and the child’s education—should ordinarily be shared.
The judgment also stated that decisions concerning a child’s schooling, place of residence and educational expenses should be taken jointly by both parents, and one parent should not unilaterally make such decisions while expecting the other to bear the entire financial burden.
Interim Maintenance Reduced
Considering the husband’s reduced income, continuing loan liabilities and the wife’s earning capacity, the Bombay High Court modified the Family Court’s order and reduced the interim maintenance from ₹50,000 to ₹25,000 per month. The court reiterated that interim maintenance must be determined on the basis of the parties’ actual financial circumstances and that the principle of equality applies equally to financial obligations within a marriage.