The Delhi High Court recently observed that a wife’s claim for interim maintenance cannot be turned down merely because she is educated or earning. .A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar reasoned that in assessing a claim under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the determinative test is not merely whether the wife is employed or capable of earning, but whether her income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to during cohabitation. “The very purpose of interim maintenance is to strike a fair balance and ensure parity in lifestyle, so that the financially weaker spouse and the child are not prejudiced by the economic advantage of the other,” the Court held. It stressed that to ensure parity and fairness, the maintenance must be calibrated in a manner that allows both parties, especially the financially weaker spouse, to live with dignity and maintain a comparable lifestyle. .The Court made these observations while dealing with a plea filed by a woman against a family court order directing the husband to pay an interim maintenance of ₹35,000 per month, along with school-related expenses for their minor daughter. The couple had gotten married in November 2013 and had a daughter in August 2016. Due to matrimonial discord, they started living separately in October 2019. While denying maintenance to the wife, the family court had noted that the wife was working as an Assistant Professor with a college affiliated with the Delhi University and that she is “sufficiently qualified and employed, capable of sustaining herself independently”. The family court held that the purpose of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to prevent destitution and not to equalise incomes. .The High Court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning and underscored that while the purpose of interim maintenance is not to equalise the incomes of the spouses, but it must be ensured that both spouses maintain the same standard of living.It noted that there was a significant disparity between the wife's monthly salary of ₹1.25 lakh and the ₹1 crore annual package, stock options and travel allowances of the husband. The Court further recorded that the wife had the sole responsibility for the minor child’s daily care and education. “In the present case, though the appellant is earning, her income is insufficient to support her own needs and those of the minor child. She is currently residing with her parents, which cannot continue indefinitely, and her limited earnings compel her to remain dependent on them, causing inconvenience and hardship to the family. With such resources, she is unable to maintain a reasonable standard of living. In contrast, the respondent’s substantially higher income makes him financially capable of providing adequate maintenance. The mere fact that the appellant is earning does not disentitle her to claim maintenance, as she is entitled to the same standard of living that she enjoyed during her matrimonial life,” the Court said. Therefore, it increased the maintenance from ₹35,000 to ₹1.5 lakh per month. .Advocates RS Sahni, Jasmine Sahni and Ashmine Sahni appeared for the wife. Advocates Gaurav Kumar, Shrestha, Rahul and Sutapa Ghose represented the husband. .[Read Judgment]
