The Bombay High Court has dismissed a woman’s plea seeking interim maintenance in a matrimonial dispute, holding that she was earning substantially more than her husband and therefore was not entitled to interim financial support. The Court also observed that the husband’s employment in the information technology (IT) sector could face uncertainty due to increasing competition and the growing impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande. The woman had challenged an earlier Family Court order that rejected her application for interim maintenance. However, the Family Court had directed the husband to pay ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses.
According to the case records, the petitioner has been living in New Jersey, United States, since 2011 and is employed with an IT solutions company based in New Delhi. Court records showed that she earns approximately ₹8 lakh per month, which is higher than her husband’s income. Despite this, she sought ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings.
During the hearing, the woman argued that the cost of living in the United States is significantly higher than in India and that she therefore required additional financial assistance. The High Court, however, rejected this argument, observing that merely residing in a foreign country or incurring higher living expenses cannot, by itself, justify a claim for interim maintenance, particularly when the applicant is financially independent and earning a substantial income.
The Bench further noted that the husband is also employed in the IT industry, a sector currently undergoing rapid transformation. The Court observed that increasing adoption of Artificial Intelligence and heightened competition have created uncertainty in the IT job market, making future employment less secure. In such circumstances, the Court held that it would not be appropriate to impose an additional financial burden on the husband solely on the basis of his present earnings.
The records also showed that the couple has two children. The elder child is in the father’s custody, while the younger child is in the mother’s custody. The Court took into account the fact that both parents are bearing responsibilities towards their respective children and observed that the issue of interim maintenance must be assessed after considering the financial position and obligations of both parties.
The Division Bench reiterated that the objective of interim maintenance is to provide financial support to a spouse who is economically weaker during the pendency of legal proceedings. If the applicant is financially self-sufficient and earns more than the other spouse, interim maintenance cannot be granted merely because matrimonial litigation is pending. The Court emphasised that every maintenance claim must be decided on the basis of the specific facts of the case and the actual financial circumstances of both parties.
The High Court also found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s direction awarding ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses. It observed that the lower court had properly evaluated the evidence, the financial status of both parties, and all relevant circumstances before passing its order.
After considering all the facts and submissions, the Bombay High Court dismissed the woman’s plea for interim maintenance. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts decide maintenance claims by carefully evaluating the actual income, financial capacity, responsibilities, and overall circumstances of both spouses, rather than relying solely on marital status or the country in which either party resides.
