Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Justice PB Balaji noted that the object of awarding interim maintenance, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was to ensure that the wife had sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not merely survival but also allows her to lead a comfortable lifestyle that she would have otherwise had at the matrimonial home.
In the present case, the court noted that the wife had immovable properties in her name, and had substantial income through dividends. Thus, the court opined that the wife did not require any further interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
Further, the fact that the respondent has received substantial monies for the last three financial years is also not in dispute. The object of Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance,” the court said.
The husband had filed the civil revision petition challenging an order of the Family Court asking him to pay Rs. 30,000 as interim maintenance for his wife. The husband argued that the wife was financially self-sufficient and affluent. He added that the family court had passed a mechanical order without appreciating the pleadings in the maintenance application. He submitted that the wife was able to sustain herself for a basic and decent living, and thus no interim maintenance needed to be provided under Section 24 of the HMA.
He further informed the court that he was not challenging the order of the Family Court asking him to pay interim maintenance for his son and to take care of the son's NEET coaching expense. He added that he had already made payments towards the same and his only challenge was with respect to the interim maintenance for wife.
He added that the wife was a Director of a company and had even approached the NCLT seeking a restraining order not to release her dividends. He also informed the court that she had even settled some property that she had acquired. Thus, it was submitted that the wife's conduct would show mala fide and was only to make the claim for maintenance.
The wife, on the other hand, submitted that all dividends that were received by her had gone into meeting the educational expenses of the child. She also argued that the property was purchased by her father in her mother's name and thus, he had settled the property in the father's name since he was the ostensible owner of the property.
The court however, opined that this submission did not seem bona fide. The court added that if the father was the ostensible owner, nothing would have prevented the mother from straightaway settling the property in the father's name after purchase. Thus, the court observed that settling the property during the pendency of proceedings was only to get over the objections of the husband.
Thus, noting that the wife could lead a comfortable lifestyle, the court modified the order of the Family Court and set aside the order of maintenance for the wife.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Gowthaman Senior Counsel for Mrs. S. Karpagapriya
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. J. James
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
