In a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court by a husband to challenge an interim order dated 30-01-2025 by the Family Court, whereby he was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month to his wife, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye modified the maintenance amount to Rs. 25,000/- and directed the Family Court to decide the application within 9 months.
The husband contended that the wife was an educated lady having an MBA degree and that he himself was a Chartered Accountant. It was submitted that during the pandemic, he lost his job, his income decreased, and he was forced to move to his native place. The petitioner averred that he had to pay EMIs of two flats in Mumbai, spend on his parents, and that he was facing financial difficulties. The petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month if the wife shifted to the flat in Panvel so that the Andheri flat could be sold to clear arrears.
The wife submitted that the petitioner had not cleared the arrears as per the impugned order, which were about Rs. 27,00,000/- after deducting the amount paid. She contended that as per the income tax returns of the petitioner, a decrease in the income is shown after the litigation started, indicating that the decrease shown was not genuine.
The Court noted that the wife earned at least Rs. 15,000/- per month, but evidence of her recent employment and salary was not present before the Family Court. It was stated that the wife refused to reside with the husband without any sufficient reason, which is why she was not entitled to Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), whereas the wife contended that the husband left the matrimonial house in Andheri.
It was stated that since the pandemic had an effect on professions and businesses all across the country, the husband could not be taken as an exception, which is why it could not be said that there was no explanation for reduction in income. The Court stated that the Family Court’s finding that the petitioner’s present income could be safely considered at Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, did not appear to be based on any objective calculation or figures.
The Court noted that the wife did not contribute anything in the EMIs to be paid for keeping both the flats. It was stated that if the wife expects a luxury of staying at a premium location like Andheri without paying EMI from her own pocket and the availability of such residence is because the husband is paying EMI, then it could not be expected that the husband would not plead it as a reason for reduction in maintenance amount. Justice Sathaye said that “Equality cannot be claimed selectively and certainly not when both parties are earning. If lifestyle is to be maintained, both parties must contribute.”
The Court noted that the wife was not ready to leave Andheri and move even to Panvel, let alone to the native place of the husband. It was stated that the husband was fully justified in contending that he was not in a position to bear the payment of both EMIs and hence sought a reduction in the maintenance amount. The Court opined that no fault could be found if a husband facing maintenance litigation wants to dispose of any of his properties to raise money for meeting monthly expenses.
It was found that the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also for the purpose of taking care of the educational expenses of the son. The Court stated that when both parents are earning, want their children to get best education, and both are expected to contribute to the educational expenses, the decision about the school and fees must be taken with consent of both stakeholder parties. It was stated that “decisions about choice of school, its location, and location dependent fees cannot be taken unilaterally without consent of the party who is supposed to pay.”
The Court set aside the impugned order, directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,000/- till the disposal of the main application under Section 125 of CrPC. Considering that the arrears were not substantially cleared, the husband was directed to pay arrears as per the modified amount within 12 weeks, failing which, the impugned order would revive. Lastly, the Court expedited the hearing of the main application and directed the Family Court to decide the same within 9 months. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
