The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court partly allowed a husband’s writ petition, reducing interim maintenance from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000 per month. The Court clarified that only actual income, not non-income-generating assets, should be considered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act while deciding maintenance pendente lite.
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court partly allowed a writ petition filed by the husband and reduced the interim maintenance payable to his wife from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000 per month.
Justice M. W. Chandwani clarified that, while deciding maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court must consider only the parties’ income and not idle property or capital assets that do not generate revenue.
Justice Chandwani noted,
“The distinction between the law laid down under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1955 is unambiguous and clear. Section 24 uses the word ‘income’ whereas, Section 25 uses the words ‘income and property’ both. While considering the quantum of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, it is only the income and not the property or the capital source which are to be considered.”
Background
The parties married on November 27, 2004. In March 2019, the husband stated that he discovered the wife’s alleged extra-marital relationship, following which they separated.
The husband then sought divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, while the wife approached the court for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9.
During the divorce proceedings, the wife filed an application seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5 lakhs per month under Section 24. On March 13, 2023, the Family Court No. 3, Nagpur ordered the husband to pay Rs,1,00,000 per month as interim maintenance and Rs.25,000 toward litigation costs.
The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
Husband’s counsel Mr. Rishi Bhargava argued that the Family Court failed to comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha. He further contended that the Family Court mistakenly applied the standards for permanent alimony under Section 25 while dealing with interim maintenance under Section 24.
The husband submitted that his gross total income is about Rs.20 lakhs per annum and that he is solely responsible for the education of their children in the United Kingdom. He also claimed that the wife runs a catering business called “Narmada Caterers”, earning Rs.20,000 per month.
Mr. Ritesh Badhe for the wife submitted that she is entitled to a lifestyle consistent with the husband’s status, noting that the husband travels abroad frequently and holds stakes in multiple companies. He denied that the wife runs any catering business, stating that the business belongs to her brother. He also argued that the husband’s willingness to purchase expensive property in a separate civil proceeding suggested he had sufficient financial means.
The High Court focused on the difference between Sections 24 and 25.
Court’s Reasoning
Relying on the Calcutta High Court decision in Gita Chatterjee Vs. Probhat Kumar Chatterjee, the Court observed that income is the yield, but the asset/source itself is not treated as income for such calculations. It also held that idle property, which does not generate returns, should not be used while computing interim support.
On the husband’s financial capacity, the Court considered his Income Tax Returns showing around Rs.20 lakhs per annum, along with his substantial shareholding (around 90% or more) in various companies, including Amrapali Bar and Restaurant and Motel Amrapali Pvt. Ltd.
The Court concluded that, besides the income reflected in his personal returns, the husband also had additional earnings through these companies.
However, the Court also noted that the wife did not provide a detailed breakdown supporting her claim of Rs.5 lakhs monthly expenses.
Taking into account the husband’s responsibility toward the children’s foreign education and the wife’s essential requirements, the High Court found that Rs.2,500 per day, totaling Rs.75,000 per month, would be just and proper for interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. The Court kept litigation costs unchanged at Rs.25,000.
The High Court further clarified that its observations were prima facie, meant only for the interim determination and would not prejudice the final outcome.
Case Title: Sachin S/o Balasaheb Agne vs. Harshada W/o Sachin Agne