The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently criticised a woman's plea for interim maintenance from her husband, after noting that she earned well enough to financially support herself. .Justice Vivek Jain cited Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, likening the woman's plea to an "attempt to extract a pound of flesh" from her estranged husband, to describe the unreasonable nature of the demand.“The present petition is nothing but an attempt to extract a pound of flesh from the husband, which cannot be permitted."The Court observed that the spouses had broadly comparable incomes and that there were no children to maintain. It further noted that the woman earned over ₹1 lakh per monthIt, therefore, upheld a family court order denying interim maintenance to the woman..The Court was hearing a woman’s challenge to a February 18, 2026 order passed by the family court, rejecting her request for financial support and litigation expenses during the pendency of divorce proceedings.The couple had married on November 4, 2022, but had been living separately since June 2023. The Court also noted that the couple has no children. The husband eventually filed for divorce.During the pendency of these divorce proceedings, the wife filed an application before the Family Court seeking interim maintenance. In her application, she admitted that she was employed and earning ₹20 lakh annually. She alleged that her estranged husband earned ₹30 lakh per year, though this claim was denied by him.The family court eventually rejected her plea after noting that she was already earning a substantial income and had no dependents or other financial responsibilities..When the matter reached the High Court, the woman argued that her financial circumstances had changed and that her salary had reduced to ₹14.81 lakh per year.However, the High Court noted that even on this basis, her income would still be about ₹1.25 lakh per month, indicating that she remained financially capable of supporting herself.The Court held that the family court had correctly assessed the situation and that there was no legal error in its decision that required the High Court to intervene..The Court also pointed out that the case did not involve a situation where one spouse was financially dependent on the other.“There is no child to maintain and there is no such financial disparity between the husband and wife whose incomes are comparable to each other,” the Court observed..In view of these factors, the High Court concluded that the woman’s request for interim maintenance was not justified and dismissed the petition..Advocate Rajesh Kumar Patel represented the wife (petitioner)..Case Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:25498
