Wife Earning USD 8,700 Monthly Cannot Claim Interim Maintenance from Husband Bombay HC Rejects NRI Woman's ₹1 Lakh Demand Under Section 24 HMA
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsIn a significant ruling on spousal maintenance law, the Bombay High Court held that a professionally qualified woman earning USD 8,700 per month in the United States cannot claim interim maintenance from her husband merely because the cost of living abroad is "exorbitant." The judgment reinforces that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act exists to protect financially weaker spouses not to subsidize the lifestyle choices of those who are economically self-sufficient. Title: Wife Earning USD 8,700 Monthly Cannot Claim Interim Maintenance — Bombay HC Rejects NRI Woman's ₹1 Lakh Demand Under Section 24 HMA Case Name: Rajni Pravin Kumar Shete vs. Pravin Kumar Janardan Shete (Interim Application No. 3968 of 2025 in Family Court Appeal) Case Number: Interim Application No. 3968 of 2025 Court: Bombay High Court Judges: Hon'ble Justice Bharati Dangre and Hon'ble Justice Manjusha Deshpande Judgment Date: July 17, 2026 Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 339 ABSTRACT The question of when a spouse qualifies for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has generated considerable judicial discourse over the years. The Bombay High Court, through its division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, recently addressed this question in a factual scenario involving a US-based professionally qualified woman seeking ₹1 lakh per month from her estranged husband while her family court appeal remained pending. The applicant-wife earned a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700 (approximately ₹7.3 lakh) from Mark Infotech Inc., New Jersey, while her husband held a non-technical role in the IT sector with comparatively modest earnings. The Court categorically held that the higher cost of living abroad cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for claiming interim spousal support when the applicant is demonstrably the financially stronger party. This judgment contributes to the growing body of precedent affirming that maintenance provisions are remedial measures designed to protect economically vulnerable litigants, not entitlements available regardless of financial capacity. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Legal Context Factual Background and Marital History Contentions of the Applicant-Wife Contentions of the Respondent-Husband Court's Analysis — Interpretation of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act The Ruling — Financial Independence as a Bar to Interim Maintenance Relevant Case Laws and Statutory Framework Significance, Implications, and Conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL CONTEXT The institution of marriage in Indian law carries with it certain reciprocal financial obligations, the enforcement of which becomes particularly contentious upon the breakdown of the marital relationship. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("HMA") provides a statutory mechanism for interim financial relief during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. The provision operates on a straightforward premise: where one spouse lacks independent means to support themselves or to meet the expenses of litigation, the court may direct the other spouse to pay maintenance pendente lite and litigation costs. The language of the section is gender-neutral — either the husband or the wife may claim such relief — and the grant is contingent upon the applicant demonstrating an absence of independent, sufficient means. The present case before the Bombay High Court tested the boundaries of this provision in a cross-border context. The applicant-wife, a qualified IT professional holding BCA, MCA, PMP, and SAFe certifications, had been residing and working in the United States since 2011. She sought ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance from her estranged husband during the pendency of her appeal against a Family Court order that had dissolved the marriage but denied her permanent alimony. The central question was whether the undeniably higher cost of living in a foreign jurisdiction could transform an otherwise financially self-sufficient professional into a "financially weaker party" deserving of statutory protection under Section 24 of the HMA. 2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MARITAL HISTORY The marriage between the parties was dissolved by the Family Court, Pune, through a judgment delivered in 2023. While the Family Court granted the divorce, it rejected the wife's prayer for permanent alimony. The Court also directed that custody of the couple's elder son would remain with the husband, while the younger son would stay with the mother in the United States. The Family Court had additionally ordered the husband to pay ₹25,000 towards the cost of litigation. The wife challenged the denial of permanent alimony before the Bombay High Court by way of a Family Court Appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, she filed Interim Application No. 3968 of 2025, seeking ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA. The factual matrix revealed that the wife had been living in the US since 2011, a period of approximately 15 years by the time of this order. She was employed with Mark Infotech Inc., New Jersey, and drew a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700, with a net take-home pay of USD 6,186.60. Her professional qualifications included a Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA), Master of Computer Applications (MCA), Project Management Professional (PMP) certification, and Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) certification. The husband, in contrast, possessed a non-technical background with a basic SAP course and was employed in the IT sector at a comparatively lower salary. The Court also noted that the husband faced constant apprehension about job security due to increasing competition and the disruption brought about by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation in the IT industry. 3. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT-WIFE The wife's case rested on several arguments presented through her counsel, Advocates Medha Jondhale, Anand Jondhale, and Rajnandini Jondhale. The primary contention was that despite earning a steady income, the wife had no disposable surplus after meeting her monthly expenses in the United States. She argued that she was living under "extreme financial strain due to the exorbitant cost of living abroad" and that her entire income was consumed by rent, the younger son's educational expenses, healthcare costs, and general living expenses in New Jersey. She contended that she had been bearing all financial responsibilities for her son single-handedly without any contribution from the husband. The wife further pointed to the husband's alleged assets, claiming that he owned multiple properties including three houses in Pune, a house in Vita, and three commercial shops. Her counsel argued that the husband was an "able-bodied man, leading a luxurious life" who had the financial capacity to support her. The wife also submitted that a spouse need not be rendered destitute before she can claim maintenance and that the purpose of Section 24 was to ensure parity during litigation. This argument drew upon the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 7 SCC 1 , which established comprehensive guidelines for maintenance proceedings and emphasized that both parties must make full and frank disclosure of their financial positions. 4. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-HUSBAND Advocate Abhijit Sarwate, appearing for the respondent-husband, presented a robust defence. The husband's primary contention was that the wife was not merely financially independent but was, in fact, earning substantially more than him. He submitted documentary evidence demonstrating that the wife's gross monthly income of USD 8,700 far exceeded his own earnings in the Indian IT sector. He argued that a person earning approximately ₹7.3 lakh per month (at prevailing exchange rates) could not, by any reasonable standard, be characterized as the "financially weaker party" entitled to the protection of Section 24 of the HMA. The husband also contested the wife's claims regarding his alleged properties, submitting that the properties cited by the wife were registered in the names of his father and brother, not in his own name. He further disclosed his financial obligations, which included maintaining his elderly parents who had taken voluntary retirement, funding his elder son's education in Australia, and supporting his second wife whom he had married in 2024 following the dissolution of his first marriage. Crucially, the husband pointed out that the Family Court had already examined the wife's income while rejecting an earlier maintenance application during the divorce proceedings, and that the wife had never challenged that adverse order. The failure to challenge the earlier rejection, argued the husband, weakened her present claim for similar relief at the appellate stage. 5. COURT'S ANALYSIS — INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT The division bench undertook a careful analysis of the scope and purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . The provision reads, in relevant part, that where in any proceeding under the Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband has no independent income sufficient for his or her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the court may order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding as having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent may seem to the court to be reasonable. The Court emphasized that the legislative language contains a clear precondition: the applicant must have "no independent income sufficient" for support and litigation expenses. The bench held that the very object of Section 24 is to ensure "the financially weaker party should be able to defend the proceedings ably and is not left in a vulnerable financial position throughout the proceedings." This interpretation aligns with the jurisprudence established in Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003) 9 SCC 636 , where the Supreme Court held that the main condition for the grant of maintenance pendente lite is that the applicant should have no independent income sufficient for support. The Bombay High Court noted that Section 24 does not guarantee the maintenance of a particular lifestyle or standard of living — rather, it functions as a safety net for the economically disadvantaged litigant who might otherwise be unable to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings. 6. THE RULING — FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE AS A BAR TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE Applying the legal principles to the facts, the bench found comprehensively in favour of the husband. The Court observed that the wife was "a qualified professional, residing abroad since last 15 years, who has brought up two children single-handedly" and that she presently had "more than sufficient income at her disposal, which is proved from the documents placed on record by the Applicant herself." The Court specifically noted the irony that the very documents the wife had placed on record to support her case — her salary slips showing a gross income of USD 8,700 and net income of USD 6,186.60 — conclusively established her financial self-sufficiency. The bench rejected the wife's argument that the high cost of living abroad constituted a special circumstance justifying maintenance. In its order, the Court stated: "Although she has stated that there is no disposable surplus income due to various expenses which are required to be incurred by her, we do not find any favour in her reason for claiming interim maintenance from the husband. Her only excuse is that she is living under extreme financial strain due to exorbitant cost of living abroad. In our view, this cannot be a ground for claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the Family Court Appeal." The Court thereby established an important principle: a spouse's voluntary choice to reside in a high-cost jurisdiction does not create a corresponding obligation upon the other spouse to subsidize that choice, particularly when the claimant is already the higher-earning party. The interim application was accordingly dismissed. 7. RELEVANT CASE LAWS AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK This judgment must be understood within the broader canvas of maintenance jurisprudence developed by Indian courts over decades. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is the primary statutory provision invoked in this case, but it operates alongside Section 25 of the HMA (permanent alimony and maintenance) and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (maintenance of wives, children, and parents), each serving distinct purposes within the overall framework of spousal support law. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 7 SCC 1 laid down comprehensive guidelines for maintenance proceedings, mandating disclosure of income and assets through sworn affidavits, and establishing that overlapping maintenance orders from multiple forums must be adjusted to prevent double recovery. The present Bombay High Court judgment complements this framework by reinforcing that the financial capacity of the claimant remains the threshold inquiry under Section 24. Similarly, in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 , the Supreme Court emphasized that maintenance proceedings must consider the realistic financial positions of both parties rather than relying on assumptions or claims unsupported by evidence. The Delhi High Court's recent ruling denying permanent alimony to a financially independent IRTS officer (October 2025) further solidifies the trend that Indian courts are increasingly unwilling to treat maintenance as an automatic entitlement divorced from the actual economic circumstances of the claimant. The consistent thread across these decisions is that maintenance provisions — whether interim or permanent — exist to address genuine economic vulnerability, not to redistribute wealth between spouses who are both capable of self-support. The Bombay High Court's present order in RPKS v. PKJS fits squarely within this evolving jurisprudential consensus and offers particular guidance for cases involving NRI spouses who invoke foreign living costs as a basis for domestic maintenance claims. 8. SIGNIFICANCE, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION This judgment carries significant implications for matrimonial litigation involving NRI spouses and cross-border financial disparities. By holding that the "exorbitant cost of living abroad" cannot, standing alone, justify a claim for interim maintenance, the Bombay High Court has established a practical and equitable principle. The decision prevents the instrumentalization of Section 24 of the HMA by financially capable professionals who might otherwise leverage geographical cost-of-living differences to extract support from less affluent former spouses. The ruling acknowledges the economic reality that a professional earning USD 8,700 per month, regardless of which country she resides in, cannot credibly claim to be in the position of financial vulnerability that Section 24 was designed to address. The judgment also carries broader significance for the evolving understanding of gender neutrality in maintenance law. The Court's analysis was conspicuously fact-based and gender-neutral — it did not deny maintenance because the applicant was a woman, but because the applicant was demonstrably the financially stronger party. This approach honours the legislative intent behind the 2001 amendment to Section 24 that made the provision available to husbands as well, confirming that the operative criterion is economic need rather than gender identity. For practitioners handling matrimonial cases involving NRI parties, this decision underscores the importance of documentary evidence of income. The wife's own salary records became the basis for rejecting her claim — a cautionary illustration that in maintenance applications, disclosure cuts both ways. As the substantive appeal regarding permanent alimony remains pending before the Bombay High Court, the final determination of the parties' financial rights may yet evolve. However, the principles articulated in this interim order — that self-sufficiency bars interim relief, that foreign living costs do not create domestic maintenance obligations, and that Section 24 protects the economically weaker party rather than the geographically disadvantaged one — will continue to guide family courts across the country in similar disputes. Keywords: Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, interim maintenance, Bombay High Court, financially independent wife, NRI maintenance claim, cost of living abroad maintenance, RPKS v PKJS, 2026 LiveLaw Bom 339, spousal support India, maintenance pendente lite