Bombay HC Refuses Interim Maintenance to Wife Earning USD 8,700 a Month in the US, Pending Family Court Appeal

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed an interim maintenance application filed by a wife residing in the United States, holding that her gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 made her ineligible under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that the high cost of living abroad is not a ground for claiming interim support.

On 17 July 2026, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande rejected an interim application in which the appellant-wife had sought Rs. 1 lakh per month as interim maintenance from her estranged husband, pending the hearing of Family Court Appeal No. 54 of 2023. The wife, a qualified IT professional residing in the United States since 2011, was found to be earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 at the time of the hearing. The bench, in an order authored by Justice Manjusha Deshpande, held that the applicant had failed to make out a case under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is intended for the financially weaker party to a matrimonial proceeding — not for a party with more than sufficient income at her disposal.

The Dispute Before the Court

The underlying appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 21 March 2023 passed by Family Court No. 5, Pune, in Divorce Petition P.A. No. 988/2018. The Family Court partially allowed the petition, dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Custody of the elder son was given to the husband; custody of the younger son was given to the wife. The Family Court awarded the wife costs of Rs. 25,000, to be paid by the husband.

The Family Court, however, refused to grant permanent alimony to the wife. Aggrieved by that refusal, she filed Family Court Appeal No. 54 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of that appeal, she filed Interim Application No. 3958 of 2025 seeking Rs. 1 lakh per month as interim maintenance.

Grounds Put Forward by the Wife

The applicant's counsel, Ms. Medha Jondhale, submitted that the husband had wilfully neglected to provide any financial support, and that the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage was a relevant benchmark. It was argued that the husband owns multiple properties at prime locations in Pune — three houses in Pune, one house at Vita, three shops in the heart of Pune, and a car. His salary slip from September 2015 showed an annual income of Rs. 11,50,002.

Counsel submitted that although the wife is employed, her work project was stated to be ending in June 2025, creating uncertainty about future income. She is resident in the United States on an H1B visa, managing the college expenses of the elder son, who is studying in Australia at approximately USD 60,000 per year. Her parents, both retired and on pension, are not in a position to support her. It was argued that a wife need not be destitute to claim maintenance, and that the husband's primary obligation to maintain his wife and children persists regardless of the wife's earnings.

The Husband's Response

Mr. Abhijit Sarwate, appearing for the respondent-husband, raised a preliminary objection: the very subject matter of the Family Court Appeal is the refusal of permanent alimony, and the same relief cannot be sought again by way of an interim application in the appeal. He contended that the wife is gainfully employed in the United States since 2011 and is financially independent. He pointed to salary slips on record showing that she is employed with Mark Infotech Inc., New Jersey, drawing a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 and a net salary of USD 6,149.60.

The husband relied on Family Court findings from the proceedings under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which had recorded that the wife earned USD 1,12,926.78 in 2017 and USD 1,09,606.78 in 2018 — amounts substantially exceeding the husband's income at the time. The wife's earlier interim maintenance application before the Family Court had also been rejected, and that order was not challenged by her.

On his own financial position, the husband stated that the properties identified by the wife stand in the names of his father and brother, not in his own name. He submitted that he is the sole earning member of his family, supporting his elderly parents who opted for voluntary retirement due to health issues, and that he bears the education expenses of the elder son studying in Australia. He also disclosed in an affidavit filed on 14 June 2025 that he had remarried on 14 July 2024, adding the responsibility of a second wife. He stated that, given increasing automation and AI-led competition in the IT sector, he faces the constant risk of job loss.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench examined the documents on record — including an Earning Certification for the period 1 January 2026 to 31 January 2026 — and found that the applicant was earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 and a net pay of USD 6,186.60. The application itself was verified before a notary public in Maryland, USA. The bench noted that the wife holds professional qualifications of BCA, MCA, PMP and SAFe Certifications, and has been residing abroad since 2011, a period of over 15 years.

The bench rejected the wife's submission that she has no disposable surplus due to the cost of living abroad. It observed that the only excuse offered was extreme financial strain due to the exorbitant cost of living, and found that this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of a Family Court Appeal.

The bench then turned to the scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 24 provides that if a party to matrimonial proceedings has no independent, sufficient means for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, the court may direct the other party to pay monthly maintenance and expenses of proceedings, having regard to the incomes of both parties. The bench articulated the purpose of the provision plainly: “the financially weaker party should be able to defend the proceedings ably and is not left in a vulnerable financial position throughout the proceedings.”

Applying this standard, the bench found that the applicant does not fall within the class of persons Section 24 is designed to protect. She is a qualified professional with documented, continuing employment and a net monthly income exceeding USD 6,000. Her own documents proved that she has more than sufficient income at her disposal. The bench expressed the position in clear terms: “the Applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of her prayer in the Application.”

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Interim Application No. 3958 of 2025. The interim maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh per month sought by the applicant-wife was refused. The Family Court Appeal No. 54 of 2023, which challenges the Family Court's refusal of permanent alimony, remains pending adjudication before the Bombay High Court.