Bombay High Court

Shrutika Shirish Raut W/O Siddharth ... vs Siddharth Ramesh Mahadik on 20 September, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:39464

                                                                                  12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                       WRIT PETITION NO.19422 OF 2024


               Mrs. Shrutika Shirish Raut                         ]
               W/o Siddharth Ramesh Mahadik                       ]
               Age : 35 Years, Occu : Professional                ]
               R/at: 702 Malhar Apts, Lane No. 7                  ]
               Prabhat Road, Pune 411004.                         ]                  .. Petitioner
                                V/s.
               Mr. Siddharth Ramesh Mahadik                       ]
               Age : 35 Years, Occu : Business                    ]
               R/at: Not known                                    ]
               Having O/at : "Le Plaisir"                         ]
               Raj Kamal Survey No. 759/125,                      ]
               Prabhat Road, Diagonally Opposite                  ]
               Kelkar Nursing Home, Pune-411004.                  ]                  .. Respondent




               Mr. Abhijit Sarwate a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Dhage, Mr. Vaibhav Thorave
               and Ms. Hardev K. Aidhen, for the Petitioner.

               Mrs. Shrutika Shirish Raut (Petitioner), present in Court.

               Mr. Sandesh Shukla a/w Ms. Saba Shaikh, Mr. Amit Singh,
               Ms. Anasamah Saayed and Mr. Bhushan Bhadgale i/b. Abhay Nevgi &
               Associates, for the Respondent.



                                                     CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                                RESERVED ON : 16th JULY 2025
                                        PRONOUNCED ON :         20th SEPTEMBER 2025


                                                         1/24

               Kartikeya Goti
                 ::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2025                         ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2025 21:16:07 :::
                                                             12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc



JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the parties. The Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The Petitioner-Wife, pending the Divorce proceedings, has filed

an Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

("HMA") for maintenance pendente lite.

3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her Application, vide order

dated 04.11.2024, passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune, below

Exhibits 5 and 22, the Petitioner has approached this Court in its

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the present Writ

Petition are as under :

[i] The Petitioner has filed proceedings for Divorce, Compensation,

Maintenance, and other reliefs, being P.A. No. 567 of 2023, which is

pending before the Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune.

[ii] The parties were married as per Hindu Vedic Rites on

29.03.2019.

[iii] No issue was born out of the said wedlock.

[iv] The Petitioner is an Architect by profession and the Respondent is

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

the owner of two restaurants, namely, "Le Plaisir", which is located at

Prabhat Road, Pune, and "Loco Octro", which is situated at Aundh,

Pune.

[v] The parties resided at Pune in a 4 BHK apartment, which is

owned by the parents of the Respondent.

[vi] Though the Respondent is a Marine Engineer, he acquired a

diploma in Culinary Art/Science from Le Cordon Bleu, Australia and is

presently, owner of two popular restaurants at Pune. He started his first

restaurant in November, 2012 and the second restaurant was started in

the year 2023.

[vii] During their marriage, the parties had vacationed at exotic places

like Goa and Bali, etc.

[viii] It is claimed by the Petitioner that, the turnover of the

Respondent is about Rs. 65 to 70 lakhs per month, which increases to

Rs. 90 to 95 lakhs per month during festive season.

[ix] The parties separated in the year 2021. After separation, the

Petitioner has filed the proceedings for Divorce under

Section 13 (1)(i-a) and 25 of the HMA, seeking Divorce and permanent

alimony, along with an Application for maintenance under Section 24 of

the HMA, which is marked at Exhibit 5.

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

[x] During the pendency of the Application at Exhibit 5, the parties

filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities.

[xi] The Application at Exhibit 5 was heard along with the Application

at Exhibit 22, which is an Application for interim maintenance. Both

these Applications were decided, vide a common order dated

04.11.2024, rejecting the Wife's claim for interim maintenance.

5. Mr. Sarwate, learned Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner-Wife

submits that, the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune, is

arbitrary, erroneous and based on findings that are not supported by

any documents. Hence, the order needs to be interfered with by this

Court in its exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed by the Petitioner on the table reproduced in the

memo of the Writ Petition showing the comparative income of the

Husband and Wife from the year 2016-17 to 2023-24. As per the last

item in the Table, the net income of the Wife was Rs.4,92,160/- and the

income of the Husband was Rs. 3,01,40,274.39/-, which is 61 times of

the income of Wife.

7. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, this issue has not been

appropriately addressed by the Judge, Family Court. According to the

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

Petitioner, the Family Court has placed unnecessary reliance on the

alimony received by her from her previous marriage, thereby drawing

an adverse conclusion against her. It is submitted that, the observation

of the Judge, Family Court that the Applicant, in her Application, has

not disclosed receipt of Rs. 20 lakhs and 10 Tola Gold from her

ex-husband, is contrary to the record. He points out that, in the rebuttal

argument placed on record by the Petitioner, before the Family Court

dated 04.11.2024, there is a specific averment that, the amount of

alimony received by her from her previous marriage has been partially

paid to her father and remaining amount is invested by her. She has

also disclosed in her affidavit of assets and liabilities that, she has

invested Rs. 10 lakhs in Mutual Funds. Hence, there is no suppression

regarding amount received by her from her previous marriage. It is

further submitted that, the Trial Court has failed to take into

consideration the subsequent affidavits filed by the Petitioner, wherein

she has clarified her income, as well as the alimony received from her

previous marriage.

8. The learned Advocate further submits that, the observation of the

Court that, "as per opponent, the applicant's income is much more than

him, as his business is running into losses", is contrary to the

documents. The observation of the Trial Court that, the salary of the

Employees of the Petitioner is almost equal to her monthly income, is

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

itself contrary to the record. In her clarification, she has stated that, she

requires interns and junior architects for co-ordination and running

errands; however, she manages the site herself. The names of the

juniors reflected in the Bank Statement are the freshers. The juniors

working with her are interns from college and are being paid nominal

stipends, which is not at all equal to her monthly income. Whatever

income she is receiving, is reflected in her Income Tax Returns ("ITRs").

She has admitted that, her monthly income is around Rs. 30,000/- to

Rs. 35,000/-.

9. It is submitted that, the observations made by the Judge, Family

Court, referring to her notice dated 18.08.2022, wherein the Petitioner

has claimed that, "she has been maintaining both of them and the

Respondent never spent a penny during their cohabitation and now, she

is claiming that, opponent is earning in crores, is highly improbable",

amounts to a distorted appreciation of the notice. It is submitted that,

the context in which the Petitioner stated that, she was bearing the

expenses of the household, is totally different from the interpretation

given by the Judge, Family Court. The statement was made by the

Petitioner in her notice in context with her work-life balance before and

after marriage. While maintaining the work-life balance, she could not

save much as she has been bearing the household expenses for both of

them.

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

10. Mr. Sarwate, learned Advocate submits that, the intent of

Paragraph No.13 in the notice was also to demonstrate the conduct of

cruelty of the Respondent. In spite of a thriving business, he was not

contributing towards the household expenses and the Petitioner was

spending an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month for the upkeep and

maintenance of both of them. The Petitioner has never made any

statement that, the business of Respondent was not doing well or that,

he was not receiving a good income from his business. Therefore, the

observation made by the Judge, Family Court that, she was maintaining

both of them contradicts the statement that, he is earning in crores, is a

distorted version of the averments made by the Petitioner in her notice

dated 18.08.2022.

11. It is submitted that, the observations made by the Judge, Family

Court, regarding the income of the Respondent are made without taking

into consideration the Bank Statements placed on record. The financial

capacity of the Husband, which is reflected in the voluminous record,

has been totally ignored and on the contrary, the Judge, Family Court,

has observed that, it is highly improbable that, the Respondent-Husband

is earning in crores, which is inconsistent with the Bank Statements

placed on record. The observations made by the Judge, Family Court

that, the income of the Opponent-Husband, which runs in crores, is

highly improbable, is falsified from the affidavit of assets and liabilities

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

filed by the Husband, which itself discloses that, as per audited financial

statements as on 31.03.2023, Total Income, i.e., income from Business

and Other Sources, the Net Income of the Respondent is Rs. 15.50 lakhs

per month.

12. Though he has further tried to explain it by stating that, the

income generated is required to be reinvested in the business itself for

development of the business, it does not absolve him from the financial

status shown by him in his affidavit of assets and liabilities. It is,

therefore, submitted that, the observation made by the Judge, Family

Court that, the Respondent cannot earn such a huge amount, is totally

perverse and contrary to the record.

13. Similarly, while considering the income of the Petitioner, the

Judge, Family Court, has observed that, photographs produced on

record prove that, the Petitioner is a successful Architect and therefore,

she cannot earn a meager amount as disclosed by her. This observation

is also not in accordance with the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed

by the Petitioner, in which she has categorically disclosed her sources of

income and the amount she has received from her ex-husband, which

she has partly invested in the Mutual Funds and part of the amount has

been returned to her father. It is, therefore, contended that, the

observations made by the Judge, Family Court, with regard to the

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

income of the respective parties is perverse, in as much as the

observations are totally in contrast to the affidavits filed by the

respective parties.

14. It is submitted that, the Judge, Family Court, has also relied on

the duration of their marriage while refusing the maintenance.

According to the learned Advocate, the duration of marriage or

cohabitation of the parties cannot be a consideration while granting

interim maintenance. It is submitted that, the Petitioner has voluntarily

disclosed all her assets and liabilities in her Application as well as in the

affidavit of assets and liabilities. She has filed the ITRs, which clearly

discloses that, she is earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month.

Her disclosure has been treated as a negative factor to deny her

maintenance. An earning Wife cannot be altogether denied interim

maintenance. The lifestyle of the respective parties and their respective

incomes, are required to be taken into account while entertaining the

Interim Application for maintenance. The Judge, Family Court, has

totally ignored all these factors necessary for deciding maintenance

pendente lite. The learned Advocate places reliance on the judgment of

Rajnesh V/s. Neha & Another 1, in support of his contention that, the

status of the parties; the standard of living and the financial status of

the non-Applicant have been totally ignored by the Judge, Family Court.

1 (2021) 2 SCC 324

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

The learned Advocate relies on Paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the

judgment of Rajnesh (supra) to submit that, independent income of the

Wife cannot operate as a bar, while considering her maintenance

Application.

15. It is submitted that, the income of the Husband is 61 times of the

Wife and considering the disparity in the income of both the parties, the

Judge, Family Court, ought to have granted interim maintenance to the

Applicant. In support of his contention, he relies on Paragraph No.24 of

the judgment of Rajnesh (supra), wherein it is observed that,

sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean, mere

survival. According to him, the Wife is entitled to be maintained with

the same standard of living, which she was enjoying during her

cohabitation with her Husband. It is, therefore, submitted that, the

impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune, being

contrary to the record and also contrary to the settled principles for

grant of interim maintenance, is required to be quashed and set aside.

16. Per contra, Mr. Sandesh Shukla, learned Advocate for the

Respondent-Husband, at the outset, submits that, the powers of this

Court to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India are very limited. The Family Court has acted

within the bounds of its Authority. There is no perversity or breach of

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. Therefore,

no interference is required in the impugned order since no grounds

have been made out by the Petitioner for entertaining the Writ Petition.

17. It is submitted that, the Petitioner is a highly qualified

professional and she owns a reputed Architecture firm handling Pune's

most lavish and grandeur project. Despite this, she has failed to disclose

her actual income and has suppressed her real income. Therefore, she is

not at all entitled to any interim maintenance.

18. While disclosing her assets and liabilities, the Petitioner has

suppressed the fact that, she has received Rs. 20 lakhs from her

ex-husband, along with 10 Tola gold and silver utensils, which amounts

to lakhs of rupees. On account of such suppression, since the Petitioner

has not come with clean hands, her conduct disentitles her from

receiving the maintenance amount. Most importantly, the Petitioner has

not disclosed in detail the actual expenses necessary to maintain herself.

She being a professional and having an independent source of income,

the Family Court has judiciously applied its mind and rejected the

Application for interim maintenance.

19. The object of interim maintenance is that, during the pendency of

the proceedings between the spouses, neither spouse should be left in a

condition, where he/she is unable to maintain himself/herself or

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

effectively defend the proceedings pending between them. The

provision for interim maintenance has been specifically made with an

object that, the spouse with no or meager income should not face

vagrancy and destitution and is able to defend the legal proceedings.

20. In the present case, the Petitioner has made an exaggerated claim

of Rs. 7 lakhs per month. In the case of Rajnesh (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that, in order to make an objective assessment

of the approximate amount to be awarded to the parties, various factors

are required to be taken into consideration. The factors which would

weigh the Court, inter alia, are the status of the parties; the reasonable

needs of the Wife and dependent children; the qualifications of the

respective parties; whether the Applicant has an independent source of

income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the

same standard of living of which she is accustomed to, in her

matrimonial home; and whether she is working during the subsistence

of marriage, etc. These factors being illustrative and not exhaustive, it is

held that, a careful and just balance has to be drawn between the

relevant factors.

21. According to the Respondent, the Applicant herself has stated in

her Application that, she is a professional, working as an Architect with

a thriving business. She also engages juniors to whom she is making

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

payment. This itself is indicative of the fact that, if she is able to engage

services of junior Architects, she certainly is in a position to maintain

herself during the pendency of the proceedings. Though the petitioner

has named various holiday destinations, where the parties have visited

during the subsistence of their marriage in support of her claim that, the

Respondent is accustomed to lavish standard of living, at the same time,

she has also claimed that, during the subsistence of marriage, she was

the one, who was bearing all the household expenses. Therefore, her

own statement supports the stand of the Respondent that, the Petitioner

is capable of earning and maintaining herself. The very object of Section

24 of the HMA is to provide support to either of the spouses during the

pendency of matrimonial proceedings. According to Mr, Sarwate, the

Judge, Family Court, has taken a balanced view of the matter by

holding that, the Petitioner is capable of maintaining herself during the

pendency of proceedings and accordingly, has rejected her Application

for interim maintenance. Hence, the order dated 04.11.2024, passed by

the Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune, below Exhibits 5 and 22, does not

deserve any interference.

22. I have heard the respective parties and also perused the

documents placed on record.

23. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied on the

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

voluminous record disclosing the assets and liabilities of the

Respondent-Husband with the Bank Statements under the head of

"Assets owned by the Deponent", the Respondent-Husband has

mentioned that, he owns gold and silver worth Rs. 38 lakhs, which has

been reserved as emergency fund. In the list of assets and liabilities, he

has disclosed that, he is paying EMI of Rs. 3,75,917/- per month. His

net income from business plus other income is shown to be Rs. 15.50

lakhs, which according to him is reinvested for running the business.

Though it is claimed by him that, the Petitioner is self-employed

Architect with income of not less than 1.25 lakhs, it is not supported by

any evidence. On the contrary the income disclosed by the Petitioner,

according to her ITRs is Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month. Under

the head of "General Monthly Expenses" such as rent, household,

medical bills, transportation, etc, she has claimed that, her monthly

expenses are, Rs. 1 lakh per month with shortcomings. Though she has

invested Rs. 10 lakhs in Mutual Funds, the said amount cannot be

considered as an amount, which would fetch income for her sustenance

during the pendency of the Divorce proceedings.

24. Upon comparison of the income and expenses necessary for the

respective parties, it is evident that, the income of the Respondent-

Husband is times more than that of the Wife. The Petitioner has stated

in the affidavit that, she is doing four to five projects per year and she

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

charges fees @ 5 to 10% of the project cost. On the other hand, the

Respondent-Husband has not disclosed his true income in the affidavit.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the

Bank Statements, which forms part of record. Entries dated 28.12.2020,

04.01.2021, 11.01.2021 and 18.01.2021 of its account in HDFC Bank

discloses that, the Respondent has deposited Rs. 14,99,999/- in the

Fixed Deposits ("FDs"). Entry of the HDFC Bank dated 23.02.2021

discloses that, he has purchased valuables worth Rs. 38 lakhs in one

single transaction from P.N. Gadgil Sons & Jewellers, Pune. The

Respondent is investing sizeable amounts at regular intervals in the

FDs. The various FDs of sizeable amount worth lakhs is disclosed from

the Bank Statement of the Respondent. Though the Petitioner is a

professional and has her own source of income, she also requires

sufficient income for her upkeep and maintenance. In her affidavit of

assets and liabilities, she has disclosed that, after separation in June

2021, she is residing in rented premises for which she is required to pay

rent. She is also maintaining a car, necessary for her professional

commitments, she is required to commute to the sites wherever her

work is under progress. Though the Husband has claimed that, she is

earning Rs. 1.25 lakhs to Rs. 1.50 lakhs per month from her business, it

is not supported by any documents. The Husband has merely placed on

record the photographs, which disclose that, she has completed various

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

sites as an Architect. However, it is not substantiated with any

document in support of his claim that she is earning Rs. 1.25 lakhs to

Rs. 1.50 lakhs per month. Hence, considering the Petitioner has

disclosed her income of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month, which

is supported by her ITR, has to be accepted. The Petitioner is residing in

city like Pune, though she runs a business, Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-,

is not sufficient to maintain one person comfortably.

25. The Judge, Family Court, has heavily relied on the contents of the

notice issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent-Husband dated

18.08.2022, to hold that, since the Petitioner has claimed in her notice

that, she was maintaining both of them during their cohabitation and

the Respondent has never contributed a penny, in such circumstances, it

is highly improbable that, the Respondent is earning in crores. This

observation of the Judge, Family Court, is erroneous and contrary to the

record. The Bank Statements as well as the affidavit of assets and

liabilities filed by the Respondent himself disclose that, his income

from the two restaurants is lakhs of rupees per month. Even going by

his own disclosure made in the affidavit, his net income per month is

Rs. 15.50 lakhs. In spite of such disclosure made by the Respondent-

Husband, the Judge, Family Court, has totally disregarded the affidavit

of assets and liabilities along with the Bank Statements of the

Respondent that are placed on record.

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

26. According to the guidelines of Rajnesh V/s Neha & Anr. (supra),

the affidavit of assets and liabilities is a guiding factor, to assess the

income and liabilities of the respective parties. Though the affidavit as

well as Bank Statement disclose that, there are lakhs of rupees invested

by the Respondent-Husband per month in the FDs, yet a finding is

recorded by the Judge, Family Court, that, the claim of Petitioner-Wife

is exaggerated and Husband must not be earning such huge amounts.

27. Sofar as interim maintenance is concerned, it is governed by

Section 24 of the HMA. Section 24 of the HMA reads thus :

"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.-"Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable :

[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.]"

28. Considering the scope of Section 24 of the HMA, the intention of

the Legislature for making such a provision was to provide solace to a

Wife to sustain herself during the matrimonial proceedings pending

between the parties. In order to avoid vagrancy and destitution, such

provision has been made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

Courts have consistently held that, the scope of Section 24 of the HMA is to

enable a person to support themselves with monthly expenses and necessary

legal expenses during the pendency of the legal proceedings.

29. The Judge, Family Court, has made certain observations

regarding the assets in relation to the income of the Respondent-

Husband. The Judge, Family Court, has held that, from the affidavit of

the Respondent, it is disclosed that, he does not own any immovable

property, if that be so, if his income is in crores as claimed by the

Petitioner, he would certainly invest in the immovable properties, as per

record, there is no immovable property owned by the Respondent.

Based on such assumption, the Judge, Family Court, has arrived at a

conclusion that the restaurants owned by the Respondent being new,

could not be fetching such huge income, therefore, claim of the

Petitioner is an exaggerated claim. While making such observations the

Judge, Family Court, has totally ignored the various amounts regularly

invested by the Respondent in the FDs in the HDFC Bank.

30. The extracts of Statement of Account of Respondent of

Respondent in HDFC Bank, disclose various entries of Rs. 14,99,999/-

being invested in FDs at regular intervals, almost each month between

28.12.2020 to 19.02.2024. In spite of huge record disclosing the real

income of the Husband, the Judge, Family Court, ignoring the same,

has taken a view that, Petitioner has exaggerated the income of the

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

Respondent and tried to conceal her own income. Such observation is

totally unfair and also contrary to the record.

31. The contents of the notice dated 18.08.2022 in which the

Petitioner has claimed that, she was maintaining both of them during

their cohabitation and spending almost Rs. 20,000/- per month, has

been made with an intent to demonstrate the cruelty of the Respondent

by not providing sufficiently for their day-to-day expenses. This has

been clarified by the Petitioner in her additional affidavit. Even

otherwise, after going through the notice dated 18.08.2022, it is evident

that, such a statement has been made to demonstrate that, the

Respondent was not contributing towards the household expenses. The

contents of notice are relied by the Judge, Family Court to deny the

grant of interim maintenance to the Petitioner. Such observations and

findings are totally perverse and contrary to the record.

32. So far as the object of grant of interim maintenance is concerned,

the consistent view taken by the Courts is that, the income of the

respective parties and their expenses are the decisive factors. Since the

award of interim maintenance is a temporary measure, a detail and

elaborate exercise by the Court is not expected. The Courts have to be

alive to the situation and relevant factors and not grant

disproportionate and exorbitant maintenance that would be onerous to

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

either of the parties.

33. In the case of Rajnesh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

taken an overall view of the provision of maintenance in various

enactments and has laid down the guidelines to be followed while

granting maintenance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into

consideration the various judicial pronouncements made on the

different issues under different enactments, based on which common

guidelines have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

aforementioned judicial pronouncement.

34. So far as the present case is concerned, it would be governed by

Paragraph Nos.77 to 81 of the judgment of Rajnesh (supra), which

reads thus :

"77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.

81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors.

The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 :

(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."

35. Upon perusal of the factors as laid down in the aforementioned

paragraphs, the case of the Petitioner would stand squarely covered by

it, which supports her entitlement to receive interim maintenance.

Although it is the stand of the Respondent that, the Petitioner being an

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

Architect, has her own source of income, hence, she is not entitled for

any maintenance. The following observations made in Paragraph

Nos.90 to 90.5 of the judgment of Rajnesh v/s Neha (Supra), negates

the claim of the Respondent-Husband, which read thus:

"90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:

90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 :

(2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] , this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 :

(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.

90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander

Kartikeya Goti

12-WP-19422-2024 (J).doc

Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.

90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife."

36. In the present case, though the Petitioner is earning, the income

of the Petitioner is not sufficient to maintain herself and to bear the cost

of litigation as well. The affidavit of assets and liabilities disclose that,

the expenses for her upkeep and maintenance are to the extent of

Rs. 1 lakh per month. Though the Respondent has resisted the claim of

the Petitioner, by claiming that, her income is Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1.50

lakhs per month, he has failed to prove it. The prayer of the Petitioner

being for interim maintenance, the Court has to arrive at a reasonable

amount on the basis of material on record. In my opinion, though the

Petitioner has claimed Rs. 7 lakhs per month towards interim

maintenance, it would be appropriate to grant Rs. 1 lakh per month,

which has been claimed by the Petitioner in her affidavit towards