Mumbai Court Denies Woman's Maintenance Claims Due to Higher Income than Husband

In an unusual ruling at a trial court in Mumbai, a Tardeo woman's request for interim support was rejected on the grounds that she earned a higher annual income than her divorced husband. The decision was subsequently upheld by a sessions court.

The court acknowledged that an earning woman is entitled to maintenance. However, in this particular case, the woman's income was higher compared to her husband. The woman's annual income is INR 4 lakh more than that of his ex-husband.

The background of the case dates back to 2021 when the woman accused her husband and in-laws of domestic violence. She claimed that she was forced to leave the marital home shortly after giving birth. In response to the allegations, the judge ordered the husband to pay a monthly maintenance amount of INR 10,000 for the upbringing of their small child.

During the proceedings, the woman revealed that she and her husband were living together when she got pregnant. Later, she discovered that her husband had not informed her about his ongoing treatment for sexual problems. This led to doubts and suspicion from the husband and his family regarding the paternity of the child.

Judge C V Patil ruled, "Indeed, an earning wife is also entitled to maintenance, but for that other circumstances need to be considered... Here also, the husband has more income than wife or whether the wife is entitled for maintenance would be considered on merit. But at this stage, considering prima facie income of the parties, the order of the magistrate is legal and proper."

The judge cited the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The act mandates the consideration of relevant factors to ensure the well-being of the affected parties. 

Both the husband and wife had expressed their discontent with the magistrate court's judgement and decided to file appeals in response to the magistrate court's judgement from November 2022. The woman sought increased child support and maintenance for herself, citing the financial responsibilities she shoulders as a single parent. On the other hand, the husband disputed the paternity of the child.