Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last month ruled the financial position of a wife’s parents is irrelevant in determining maintenance, setting aside an Akola family court order after finding that key evidence on wife’s income and procedural safeguards was overlooked.Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke, while allowing a criminal revision application, clarified that maintenance must be rooted in the financial capacity and needs of the spouses. “What must be assessed is whether the claimant spouse has sufficient independent income to sustain herself,” the court said, underscoring that interim maintenance depends on financial necessity rather than family background.The matter was remanded to the family court, Akola, for fresh adjudication with liberty to both parties to adduce evidence. Pending reconsideration, the court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of 10,000 each to the wife and child and to deposit 3 lakh in stages, ensuring they are not deprived of support.The case arose from a challenge by a Baroda-based man employed in South Africa against a Nov 2023 order directing him to pay 18,000 per month to his wife and 10,000 to their minor daughter. The high court found the family court failed to consider material indicating the wife was a practising lawyer with independent earnings.Despite records of her enrolment with Bar Association and appearances in multiple cases “this aspect was not considered by the family court while calculating the amount of maintenance,” the judge observed, calling for a reassessment based on complete evidence.The ruling emphasised that courts must strike a balance by evaluating the husband’s financial status, the standard of living the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home, and factors like reasonable needs, independent income, assets, dependents and liabilities. It further noted that essential expenses, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical needs must guide the determination.Justice Joshi Phalke held a wife’s earning status alone cannot disentitle her from maintenance, stating key question is whether her income is sufficient to maintain same standard of living.Court also flagged lapses, noting the family court modified maintenance amount without issuing notice to the husband. At same time, it rejected husband’s claim of lack of opportunity, observing he failed to cross-examine the wife. Relying on SC’s ruling in Rajnesh vs. Neha, court reiterated maintenance aims to prevent destitution and must be determined through balanced assessment.
