Maintenance Is Not a Commercial Transaction: Bombay High Court Enhances Interim Maintenance to Wife After 16-Year Marriage

“A marriage and the payment of maintenance at divorce is not a lending and borrowing transaction” —  Bombay High Court enhanced interim maintenance for a divorced wife from ₹50,000 to ₹3,50,000 per month, finding the husband guilty of deliberate financial suppression, unclean hands, and maintaining a lavish lifestyle while pleading poverty in court. The case, decided by a Division Bench comprising Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan, significantly expands the scope of how courts must assess marital standard of living, particularly in family businesses, and condemns the weaponisation of procedural technicalities and contrived narratives to deny just entitlements under welfare laws.

The Court rejected the husband's plea to cancel the maintenance on the basis of alleged impoverishment and an absurd claim that he had extended a ₹50 lakh loan to the wife’s uncle, which, he contended, could be treated as a form of maintenance.

“Standard of Living Cannot Be Assessed Through a Blinkered Focus on Tax Returns”: Court Calls Out Financial Misrepresentation in Maintenance Litigation

The parties, Purvi and Mukesh Gada, were married in 1997 and lived together for 16 years before separating in 2013. Mukesh filed for divorce in 2015, which was granted by the Family Court at Pune on February 24, 2023, on grounds of cruelty. He was ordered to pay ₹50,000 per month as maintenance to Purvi. Both parties filed appeals against this order — Purvi seeking enhancement, and Mukesh seeking cancellation of the maintenance order.

The wife, who appeared in person before the High Court, contended that the maintenance amount was grossly inadequate, given the lavish lifestyle she had enjoyed during marriage and the total lack of financial support post-separation — despite Mukesh being a prominent figure in a highly successful real estate and financial services business. Mukesh, in contrast, claimed to earn only ₹6 lakhs annually, pointing to his Income Tax Returns and alleging financial hardship.

“Marriage Into a Business Family Entitles Spouse to Lifestyle Commensurate With Integrated Business Wealth”

The Court issued a seminal clarification: spouses, especially housewives, married into family businesses, are entitled to a standard of living that reflects the family's integrated wealth, and not just the taxable income of the individual spouse.

Refusing to accept Mukesh’s limited disclosures, the Court ruled:

“A blinkered focus on the seemingly de jure position by looking only at such assets as the family has chosen to officially leave in the hands of the husband’s Income Tax balance sheet… would be quite inappropriate, misleading and unjust.” [Para 20]

The judges pointed out that Mukesh’s depiction of poverty was farcical, considering evidence of his affluent lifestyle — lavish birthday parties, expensive vacations, and ownership interests in a group with over ₹1,000 crores in land assets.

“Unclean Hands, Material Suppression, and a Vindictive Approach”: Court on Husband’s Conduct

The Court was deeply critical of Mukesh's false pleas, manipulated disclosures, and vindictive stance, holding:

“Mukesh has not come to Court with clean hands… There is not only material suppression… there are also positive misstatements in his claims to be a person of poor means.” [Para 72(a)]

The Court cited detailed financial records, including transfers between family members, company filings, and fluctuating shareholding patterns to demonstrate how Mukesh had attempted to evade maintenance liability by shifting ownership interests among family members.

The Bench was particularly harsh on the husband’s attempt to claim a set-off of maintenance based on a purported loan to the wife’s uncle:

“A marriage and the payment of maintenance at divorce is not a lending and borrowing transaction... There can never be a set-off on loans given by the husband to an uncle of a divorced wife.” [Paras 60-61]

“Daughter's Violin, Yoga and Baking Classes Aren’t Exorbitant”: Court Rejects Patriarchal Arguments

Mukesh had criticised his wife for incurring expenses on their daughter’s fitness training, violin lessons, and baking classes, calling them “exorbitant”. The Court rejected these objections outright:

“We are afraid we are unable to appreciate this line of argument not just for its patriarchal tenor… That a mother dares to work hard… cannot be a disqualification for expecting that the daughter’s expenses… be met by the father.” [Para 52]

The Court emphasised that the right to a dignified life extends to the child, and the expenses claimed were in fact “frugal and reasonable” for someone who had been part of a family of Mukesh’s affluence.

Purvi’s Modest Earnings Don’t Deny Her Right to Maintenance

Mukesh had argued that since Purvi was tutoring children and running a small horticulture activity, she was capable of self-sustenance. This was dismissed as legally untenable and factually exaggerated:

“Even by Mukesh’s own showing such business would hardly be a material source of income... She has to run three jobs to make ends meet to earn just about ₹1 lakh per month.” [Paras 50-51]

The Court clarified that earning a small income post-divorce does not bar entitlement to maintenance, especially after a long marriage and a drastic fall in lifestyle.

Application Under HAMA Can Be Treated as One Under HMA: Technical Objections Rejected

Mukesh’s plea that the wife’s maintenance application should fail because it was filed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) and not under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) was termed misplaced:

“To make the argument about the incorrect legislation… is to adopt an approach akin to making contentions under a fiscal statute and not under a welfare legislation.” [Para 68]

The Court held that such technical objections must not defeat the object of welfare statutes, especially when the substance of the claim is legally valid.

“Purvi is hereby granted interim maintenance of ₹3,50,000 per month. A sum of ₹42,00,000 towards 12 months starting November 1, 2025 shall be deposited by Mukesh into Purvi’s account within four weeks of the upload of this judgement.” [Paras 69-70]

All findings were stated to be prima facie in nature, subject to the outcome of the cross appeals. Nonetheless, the Bench emphasised that grave injustice would result if interim relief was not enhanced, given the facts and Mukesh’s consistent attempts to mislead the court.

In a powerful and precedent-setting judgment, the Bombay High Court has reiterated that maintenance law is not a technical, fiscal regime, but a welfare legislation meant to restore dignity and equity after the breakdown of a marriage. By recognising the economic realities of family-run business structures, and rejecting superficial metrics like taxable income, the Court has set a progressive benchmark for future matrimonial and maintenance litigation.

Date of Decision: November 10, 2025