-
by Admin
17 December 2025 4:09 PM
"Where wife is financially self-sufficient with substantial dividend income and valuable immovable assets, claim for interim maintenance is not sustainable" — Madras High Court reiterating that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is meant to secure support for a dependent spouse during matrimonial litigation and not to compensate or enrich an already affluent claimant.
In a well-reasoned judgment, Justice P.B. Balaji held that the Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife was wholly unjustified, given her substantial dividend income and ownership of valuable immovable assets. However, the maintenance awarded for the minor son was upheld and left undisturbed, as it had not been contested.
“The Object of Section 24 is Not to Subsidise Luxury” — Court Finds Suppression of Income and Assets Fatal to Wife’s Maintenance ClaimThe petitioner-husband, who had filed a matrimonial petition for divorce before the Family Court, challenged an order dated 27.01.2023, in which the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month each to the wife and the son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
While accepting his responsibility towards the child, the husband approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, disputing the wife's entitlement to maintenance in light of her independent income from dividends and her ownership of immovable properties. The High Court agreed with the husband's contention, setting aside the maintenance awarded to the wife.
The wife, XXX , had filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 seeking interim maintenance for herself and her son, Master XXX , in a pending matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act. A separate application was also filed by her for direction to the husband to pay educational expenses for the child, including NEET coaching fees, which the husband paid in full and did not contest.
The Civil Revision Petition before the High Court was therefore confined only to the award of interim maintenance to the wife.
The petitioner argued that the Family Court failed to consider:
The wife's dividend income from a diagnostic company (Scan World Pvt. Ltd.);
Her ownership of valuable immovable property;
Her active suppression of income by obtaining a restraint order from the NCLT on dividends being disbursed to her;
Her re-transfer of property during the pendency of litigation to defeat claims of financial capacity.
“Section 24 Is Meant for Subsistence, Not Comfort at the Cost of Deceit” — Interpretation of Maintenance Provisions Revisited
The Court underscored the true object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act:
“The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself… The sustenance is not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle she would have had in the matrimonial home.”
However, that benefit, the Court clarified, cannot extend to a spouse who is financially independent and possesses substantial wealth and income, especially when there is deliberate concealment of income.
The Court reproduced Section 24 HMA and emphasized the legislative intention that maintenance is conditional upon the claimant not having sufficient income.
Wife Received Over ₹47 Lakhs in Dividends in 3 Years — Suppression of Income Considered Material
The Court noted that the respondent-wife was a Director in M/s Roentgen Scan World Pvt. Ltd., and had received dividends via RTGS in the following sums:
₹15,18,750 for FY 2021-22
₹16,20,000 for FY 2022-23
₹16,20,000 for FY 2023-24
Totaling over ₹47 lakh, these payments were admitted by the wife's counsel during the hearing.
The wife had also approached the NCLT to restrain the release of dividends, a move which the Court found to be strategic and mala fide:
“The conduct of the respondent/wife in seeking an order not to release the amounts payable to her… amounts to a self-restraint order only in order to entitle her to claim maintenance from the petitioner/husband.”
Property Transfers During Litigation Held Suspicious — Re-transfer to Father Called a “Cover-up”
The Court also scrutinized a property settlement transaction wherein the wife transferred valuable property at No. 50, Khanabagh Street, originally settled in her name by her mother, back to her father during the pendency of the proceedings.
Rejecting the explanation offered by the wife that her father was the “ostensible owner”, the Court observed:
“The settlement executed by the respondent in favour of her father clearly appears to be only in order to get over the objections of the petitioner that the respondent is affluent and owns valuable immovable properties.”
The Court found this to be a clear attempt to defeat the claim that she had adequate means and thereby manufacture eligibility for maintenance
“No Justification to Award Maintenance to One Who Is Financially Independent” — Court Distinguishes from Precedents Relied Upon
While the wife’s counsel relied on Shailja v. Kobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, and Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, to argue that earning capacity is not a bar to maintenance, the Court distinguished the facts.
It noted: “In Rajnesh’s case, the Court laid down factors to assess maintenance, including the wife’s income and standard of living. Even applying this test, the respondent does not require further amounts to lead a comfortable lifestyle.”
The Court clarified that the existence of income alone is not the test, but the question is whether the spouse has “independent income sufficient for support”, as stated in the statute itself.
“Court Cannot Be Blind to Manipulation of Financial Position” — Maintenance Award Held Mechanically Passed
The Court was particularly critical of the mechanical approach of the Family Court in awarding ₹30,000 per month to the wife without proper evaluation of her financial disclosures, observing:
“The Family Court… without any reasons or even discussion with regard to the specific averments regarding ownership of immovable properties and income… has straight away proceeded to award ₹30,000/- to the wife.”
Finding this approach to be legally unsustainable, the Court interfered with the order only to the extent of the wife’s maintenance, while retaining the award to the minor son, who was found entitled to such support.Civil Revision Petition Partly Allowed — Maintenance to Wife Set Aside, Maintenance to Son Affirmed
The High Court concluded:
“In all fairness, the petitioner has stated that he is willing to meet the educational expenses of his son… I am not able to sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the respondent/wife.”
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition, and modified the Family Court’s order:
Maintenance to the wife was set aside
Maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to the son was upheld
The Court also noted that the husband had already paid NEET coaching fees of ₹2.77 lakh for the child and had not challenged that order either.
This judgment is a significant precedent on the scope and limits of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly where claims are made by financially independent spouses. It sends a clear signal that courts will scrutinize financial disclosures with rigour and will not permit strategic suppression or transfer of assets to obtain maintenance.
Justice P.B. Balaji’s ruling serves as a reminder that maintenance is a shield for sustenance, not a sword to claim unentitled benefits.
As aptly observed: “Where the wife is possessed of substantial income and properties, Section 24 cannot be invoked to create a financial obligation on the husband merely to equalise fortunes.”
Date of Decision: 22 August 2025
