MUMBAI: “Equality cannot be claimed selectively and certainly not when both parties are earning. If lifestyle is to be maintained, both parties must contribute,” the Bombay High Court observed last week in an estranged couple’s dispute over the payment of maintenance by the husband.
Event Context
The court halved the interim monthly maintenance payable by the husband to ₹25,000 from ₹50,000, while directing him to clear maintenance arrears since 2021 within 12 weeks. It noted that the wife continued to live in the couple’s flat in Andheri, for which the husband continued to pay the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs), despite having moved back to his native Baihar in Madhya Pradesh after losing his job during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The case reached the High Court after a 41-year-old chartered accountant challenged a family court’s interim order passed in January 2025 directing him to pay his estranged wife monthly maintenance of ₹50,000, with arrears from October 30, 2021 amounting to nearly ₹27 lakh. Divorce and child custody proceedings between the couple remain pending before the family court.
The husband told the High Court that before the Covid-19 pandemic he had a well-paying job in Mumbai and was servicing EMIs of about ₹1 lakh every month on two flats, one in Andheri and another in Panvel. However, after losing his job during the pandemic and suffering a decline in income, he shifted back to his native place in Madhya Pradesh. He submitted that he continued paying the EMIs on both flats while also meeting his own expenses and supporting his parents. He said he would be able to pay ₹25,000 as maintenance if his wife shifted to the Panvel flat, enabling him to sell the Andheri property and clear the maintenance arrears.
While the family court had observed that there was no explanation for the husband’s reduced income in 2021, Justice Sathaye disagreed, noting that the pandemic had adversely affected professions and businesses across the country. “Therefore, it can not be said that there is no explanation for reduction in income,” the judge said.
The family court had been informed that the 42-year-old wife, an MBA, earned ₹15,000 a month, although the husband’s lawyer argued that her actual income was much higher. The High Court also noted that she did not contribute towards the EMIs or upkeep of either of the two flats. It further recorded the husband’s contention that she had refused to move from the Andheri flat to either the Panvel property or his native place. The court held that the husband was “fully justified in contending that he is not in a position to bear the payment of both EMIs for Andheri flat as well as Panvel flat and therefore seeking reduction in the maintenance amount.”
Reducing the wife’s monthly maintenance to ₹25,000, the High Court directed the husband to clear the arrears within 12 weeks and expedited the matrimonial dispute pending before the family court.
Match Outlook
A single-judge bench of Justice M M Sathaye, in an order dated July 24, said, “In a dispute between husband and wife, if wife expects a luxury of staying at a premium location like Andheri, Mumbai without paying EMI from her own pocket and the very availability of such premium location flat/residence is because the husband is paying EMI, then it cannot be expected from the husband, who is supposed to pay EMI or paying EMI, will not plead it as a reason for reduction in maintenance amount.”
The family court had directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance ₹50,000 towards the educational expenses of the couple’s 12-year-old son. Justice Sathaye, however, observed that decisions regarding a child’s school, its location and the location-dependent fees cannot be taken unilaterally by one parent without the consent of the parent expected to bear the cost. The court said, “It is seen, more often than not, that such decisions are taken without consulting a stakeholder party who is supposed to contribute for educational expenses, which in the present case is the petitioner husband”.
The judge further observed, “It is unfortunate to note that when the husband and wife both are earning and want their children to take the best education and both are expected to contribute to education expenses, the decision about location of the school and fees must be taken with consent of both stake-holder parties”.
