Wife with Rs 16 lakh annual income asks for maintenance; husband fights back and wins the case, here's how

The Madras High Court on August 22, 2025, denied maintenance to a doctor after it was proved that she had sufficient income of her own and the husband is already paying maintenance and education cost for their son.

To tell you in a brief about this case, she is a doctor and also the director of a company. She asked for maintenance money from her husband despite earning over Rs 47 lakh in the last three years and allegedly owning 0.31 acre (32 cents) of land valued at several crores. She sought this interim maintenance from her husband during their ongoing divorce case in family court.

The family court granted her a maintenance amount of Rs 30,000 per month. However, the husband pointed out her reported source of income and alleged wealth (the 32 cents of land) to the Madras High Court. The High Court said they do not see any reason why this wife, who already has sufficient income, would want additional funds from her husband, as interim maintenence pending divorce.

Madras High Court said on August 22, 2025 (extract): “...The object of Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent (wife) is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance…”

Read below to know the legal reasonings used by the High Court that led to the husband’s victory in this case.

How did this case start?

According to Madras High Court order dated August 22, 2025, here’s the timeline of this case:

• 2019: A husband and wife wanted to divorce and went to the Fourth Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu under Hindu Marriage Act.
• 2021: The family court ordered the husband to pay the school fees, including NEET coaching fee for his son. The husband paid the money.
• 2023: The family court passed a common order directing the husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month each to the wife and son from the date of filing of the maintenance application till the disposal of the divorce case.
• 2023: The wife filed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
• August 22, 2025: Madras High Court rejects wife’s application for maintenance.

Wife’s lawyers admitted to High Court about her Rs 47 lakh income in last three years

Justice P.B Balaji of Madras High Court said on August 22, 2025:

• “In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent (wife) is a Director of a Company.
• The respondent (wife) is also a Doctor, who has been receiving regular dividends as early as February 2016.
• In fact, the statement dated June 30, 2025 issued by the company evidences the fact that for the financial years 2021-2022, the respondent (wife) has been paid a net amount of Rs 15 lakh (15,18,750), for the financial year 2022-23 a sum of Rs 16 lakh (16,20,000) and for the financial year 2023 – 2024, a sum of Rs 16.2 lakh (16,20,000). All these payments are by way of RTGS transactions.”

Justice P.B Balaji said: “In fact, on instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent (wife) also confirms that these amounts have been received by the respondent. However, it is the contention of the respondent (wife) that all those amounts have gone into for meeting the educational expenses of the son of the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) and therefore, the respondent/wife is entitled to seek interim maintenance and her income by way of dividends cannot come in the way of her seeking interim maintenance.”

Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided

High Court explains why wife having substantial income and valuable properties does not need maintenance

Justice P.B Balaji of Madras High Court said on August 22, 2025:

• "…the fact that the respondent (wife) has received substantial monies for the last three financial years is also not in dispute.
• The object of Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner by way of interim maintenance.
• In all fairness, the petitioner (husband) has stated that he is willing to meet the educational expenses of his son and has also complied with the order in I.A.No.2 of 2021.
• Even with regard to the award of Rs 30,000 maintenance to the son, the petitioner has accepted the said order and has not even challenged the same.

Justice P.B Balaji said: “In the light of the above, I am not able to sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, which is wholly unnecessary in the light of the substantial income that has accrued to the respondent (wife) by way of dividends in the company and the fact that the respondent also owns valuable immovable properties.”

Also read: Divorce case: Wife’s WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madras High Court final judgement

The Madras High Court used the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and ruled:

• Even applying the ratio laid down in Rajnesh's case, I do not find that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
• In view of the aforesaid discussions regarding her holding of immovable properties as well as the substantial income by way of substantial dividends of the Company.
• The Family Court has already awarded maintenance, considering all the expenses that have been set out by the respondent (wife) and fixed the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000 in support of the minor son and the same has not been challenged by the wife, seeking enhancement as well.
• The petitioner (husband) has also accepted the said order and has been paying a sum of Rs 30,000 to the son, apart from also meeting the amount of Rs2,77,000 (education expenses).
• The Family Court, after taking into account the assets and liabilities filed by both the parties, has only focused its attention on the requirement of the son, and without any reasons or even discussion with regard to the specific averments regarding the ownership of immovable properties and income accruing from the Company by way of dividends, has straight away proceeded to award a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife as well. In view of the above, I am inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.

Judgement: “In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order of the Family Court dated 27.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 is set aside insofar as the respondent/wife alone. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional, says: "Madras High Court has set the record straight when it comes to interim maintenance to wives under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The husband's conduct has been taken on record where, despite separation from his wife, he is willingly supporting the child's educational expenses & has not challenged the child's monthly support. Interim maintenance has no defined period, given the pace of our judicial and justice system. While interim maintenance can ensure basic comfortable needs of the estranged wife, it should not seem as a luxurious reward to a separated woman at the cost of her failed marriage."

Also read: Alimony: Retired husband to pay 60% of his pension income as maintenance to divorced wife, orders High Court

What is the significance of this judgment?

ET Wealth Online reached out to a number of lawyers about the significance of this judgement, here’s what they said:

Vipul Jai, Partner, PSL Advocates and Solicitors, says: The Madras High Court seems to have been influenced by the conduct of the wife who had transferred an immovable asset during the pendency of the proceedings in favour of her father and approached the Hon’ble NCLT seeking an order for not releasing the dividend amounts to her.

While the judgment reiterates the settled principle that interim maintenance is not intended to serve as a windfall for an already affluent spouse, it simultaneously raises a larger concern regarding the very object and scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The legislative intent behind the provision has consistently been recognised by the Supreme Court of India to ensure that the applicant spouse can maintain the same standard of living as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home and is not compelled to litigate from a financially distressed position.

By treating dividends and family-owned assets as indicators of self-sufficiency, this ruling appears to dilute that protective purpose and enhances the risk of creating a precedent whereby genuine claims of either spouse, particularly those with irregular or non-liquid assets, may be negated. Such an interpretation, if followed, could narrow the scope of Section 24 and place the applicant spouse at a comparative disadvantage in matrimonial proceedings, contrary to the spirit of the settled law.

Also read: No income tax for wife who sold husband’s gifted land for Rs 17 crore; ITAT Bangalore ruling explained

Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: This judgment reinforces the guidelines set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for grant of maintenance. While it has been held that just because a wife is working and has income, that is not sufficient for a husband to disclaim his liability to pay maintenance. However, by this Judgment, the Madras High Court has upheld the principle that, for grant of maintenance, all the factors must be considered with the principle objective of maintaining the same standard of living that the wife was maintaining with the husband. In this case, it was proved that the wife not only had substantial income, but also had assets which were sufficient for her to maintain herself post separation.

Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, says: “The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court sets a significant precedent by reaffirming that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not a matter of right in every matrimonial dispute but is conditional upon the applicant’s demonstrable incapacity to sustain herself.

Where it is established that the Applicant possesses substantial independent income and assets, such claim stands negated, for the provision is intended as a protective measure to ensure subsistence and dignity, not as an instrument of enrichment, thereby firmly establishing that financial self-sufficiency is a complete disentitlement to interim maintenance and that maintenance jurisprudence must henceforth be governed by the principle of need rather than presumption.

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, says: “The Madras High Court clarified that the core objective of interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA is to ensure the spouse's income allows not just survival, but also a lifestyle similar to what she had in her matrimonial home. If a wife possesses sufficient income (e.g., regular dividends, property holdings), further interim maintenance is not mandatory even if proceedings are ongoing.

The Court decided objectively by recognizing the wife’s assets and dividend income, setting aside maintenance, even when claims were made that income was used for the child's expenses and that properties were settled to evade scrutiny.

Implications for Future Cases:

1. Courts may scrutinize a claimant’s actual financial status ownership of properties and sources of income before awarding maintenance.
2. Interim maintenance is not automatic: self-sufficiency or affluence can rebut a maintenance claim, even if marital disputes continue.
3. Conduct such as transferring property amidst litigation may be considered when examining bona fides of maintenance claims.”