The Bombay High Court upheld a trial court decision mandating a woman to pay maintenance to her unemployed and ill husband.
Mumbai: Recently, The Bombay High Court upheld a lower court’s decision, directing a woman to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 to her unemployed husband, who also suffers from medical ailments. The court dismissed the woman’s claim of being unemployed, citing lack of supporting evidence.
READ ALSO: Kerala High Court: Senior Citizens Can Claim Past Maintenance from Children
The husband filed for divorce in 2016, and both parties had filed applications seeking interim maintenance from each other. The lower court rejected the woman’s application but granted the husband’s request, ordering the woman to pay him Rs 10,000 per month. The woman challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh presided over the case at the Bombay High Court and observed that the woman’s advocate did not dispute her current employment status.
The bench observed that the woman did not present any documentary evidence of her income in trial court. Justice Deshmukh noted,
“Had the wife argued that she was responsible for certain expenses, it was essential for her to document these claims. This would have allowed the trial court to accurately determine the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the husband.”
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court to PWD: Take Responsibility for Tree Maintenance
The court emphasized that it was crucial for the woman to disclose the source from which she was meeting her expenses. The lower court had inferred that the woman was earning an income even after resigning from her position as a branch manager at a bank, as she was responsible for paying a home loan and taking care of their minor child. However, the woman did not present any concrete evidence regarding her income or expenses, which could have helped the trial court determine an appropriate maintenance amount.
READ ALSO: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Wife Involved in Adultery Can Be Denied Maintenance
The bench concluded by stating,
“Even assuming the wife had expenses to meet, it was her responsibility to provide the necessary documentation to the trial court. This would have enabled the court to properly determine the appropriate amount of maintenance. Regrettably, this was not done in this case.”
By failing to present adequate evidence of her income and expenses, the woman in this case faced a setback in her attempt to challenge the maintenance order.
