In a significant ruling that underscores the true intent of spousal support under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Madras High Court has refused interim maintenance to a wife with a substantial income and valuable assets. The judgment reaffirmed that interim maintenance is meant to assist a financially dependent spouse in maintaining a dignified standard of living, not to supplement the lifestyle of someone who is already self-sufficient.
Delivered on 22 August 2025, by Justice P.B. Balaji, the verdict came in response to a petition filed by a husband challenging a family court order that had directed him to pay ₹30,000 per month in interim maintenance to his wife. The woman, a doctor and company director, had approached the family court for financial support while their divorce case was ongoing. Despite earning over ₹47 lakh in the last three financial years and allegedly owning nearly one-third of an acre of land valued in crores, she sought interim financial assistance from her husband.
The family court had initially granted her ₹30,000 per month. However, the husband took the matter to the Madras High Court, arguing that she had a stable income and significant assets. He also highlighted that he was already covering his son’s educational expenses, including coaching fees for competitive exams, in accordance with a 2021 court order.
During the High Court proceedings, the wife’s legal team acknowledged that she had earned ₹15 to ₹16 lakh annually over the past three years through dividends from her company. However, they contended that most of this income was spent on their son’s education and that she was therefore still entitled to financial support.
Justice Balaji rejected this argument. He noted that the wife was financially capable of supporting herself and did not require any further aid from her estranged husband. The judge emphasized that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not a tool for financial enrichment but a mechanism to ensure that a dependent spouse can lead a reasonably comfortable life during legal proceedings.
Referring to the company’s financial records, the court confirmed that the wife had received a total of ₹47.5 lakh between 2021 and 2024 through direct bank transfers. The court also took into account that she owns valuable immovable property and failed to dispute these claims effectively.
Justice Balaji observed that the husband had already accepted his responsibility toward their son and had not contested the monthly maintenance awarded for him. He had also paid an additional ₹2.77 lakh toward the child’s educational needs. The judge found no justification for awarding the same ₹30,000 amount to the wife, especially in light of her independent financial standing.
Importantly, the court referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which laid down clear guidelines for awarding maintenance. Applying the same principles, the Madras High Court concluded that the wife did not qualify for further interim support, given her income and property holdings.
The court criticized the family court for failing to consider the wife’s assets and income while awarding her maintenance. According to the High Court, the lower court had focused solely on the child’s needs and awarded the wife financial support without a proper assessment of her financial independence.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court set aside the portion of the family court’s order that granted interim maintenance to the wife. It upheld the husband’s obligation to continue supporting his son but ruled that the wife was not entitled to any additional maintenance. The judgment made clear that interim maintenance must not be misused or treated as a financial windfall for a spouse who is already economically secure.
(With inputs from Economic Times)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.