Mumbai, Equality cannot be claimed selectively, and both earning partners must contribute to household and child’s education expenses to maintain a lifestyle, the Bombay High Court has said while granting relief to a man seeking reduction in monthly maintenance for his estranged wife and minor son.
Event Context
Team Analysis
A single bench of Justice M M Sathaye, in the order passed last week, set aside the January 2025 order of a family court directing the man to pay ₹50,000 monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and son, and reduced the amount to ₹25,000.
It noted that the man was paying EMIs towards two houses – one in Mumbai’s Andheri area where his wife and son are staying and the other at Panvel in Navi Mumbai, while he himself lived in Bihar.
The wife was not contributing anything towards the EMIs, the court noted in the order, a copy of which was made available on Tuesday.
The man had, in his plea, urged the HC to reduce the monthly maintenance he has to pay his wife and son from ₹50,000 to ₹25,000.
Match Outlook
He had requested his wife to either live with him in Bihar or at least shift to the Panvel house so he could sell the Andheri home to reduce his financial burdens. The wife, however, refused.
The court said no fault can be found with the man’s requests.
In a matrimonial dispute, if the wife expects the luxury of staying at a premium location like Andheri without paying EMI or contributing to it from her own pocket, then it cannot be expected from the husband, who is already paying the entire EMI, not to plead the same as a reason to seek reduction in the maintenance amount, the bench said.
“Equality cannot be claimed selectively and certainly not when both parties are earning. If lifestyle is to be maintained, then both parties must contribute,” the court observed.
When both husband and wife are earning and want their child to get the best education, then both are expected to contribute towards the expenses, it added.
The man said he had lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic, and was now working at a much lower salary and was under financial pressure.
The court noted that the COVID-19 pandemic affected several people’s professional careers and also businesses, and hence there was an explanation for the reduction in the man’s earnings.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
