In a groundbreaking verdict, the Bombay High Court has upheld a lower court’s decision directing a wife to pay a monthly maintenance of ?10,000 to her unemployed husband. This ruling challenges the conventional legal narrative where typically, the husband is mandated to provide financial support to the wife.
The High Court’s judgment was in response to the wife’s petition challenging the lower court’s order. The court referenced Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which employs the term “spouse,” encompassing both husbands and wives. Hence, either party can seek maintenance during marital dispute proceedings if they are unable to sustain themselves.
The initial order for the wife to provide financial support was issued on March 13, 2020, by a court in Kalyan. Challenging this directive, the wife approached the High Court, arguing her inability to afford the maintenance. She cited her obligations towards a home loan repayment and the upbringing of a minor child, alongside her resignation from employment, as reasons for her financial incapacity. Conversely, the husband’s lawyer questioned her ability to manage these expenses without a disclosed source of income.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, after hearing both parties, agreed with the lower court’s rationale that if the wife was indeed managing loan repayments and child care, she must disclose her source of income, which she failed to do.
The high court observed that the woman’s lawyer did not deny her current employment. The bench remarked that the woman had also failed to present any documentary proof of her income during the trial court proceedings. “It was essential for her to submit evidence of her financial obligations if she claimed to be responsible for certain expenses, enabling the trial court to determine the appropriate maintenance amount for the husband,” Justice Deshmukh stated.
The bench also noted that estimating interim maintenance involves some speculation in the absence of concrete evidence, and is based on the incomes of the parties involved.
Finally, the bench expressed that “Even if we assume the wife has expenses, it was her responsibility to provide the necessary evidence to the trial court to properly evaluate the maintenance amount. Regrettably, this was not done in this case.
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
