The Delhi High Court recently said that where both the spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court said that the object of Section 24 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under the enactment, either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of a paucity of source of income.
“We observe that in the present case, where both the spouses are equally qualified and are earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Act…The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance which is commensurate to maintain a similar life style as the other spouse as has been observed by this Court in the case of K.N. vs. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 decided on 12.02.2019,” the court said.
The court was hearing cross-appeals filed by the husband and wife against a family court order directing the husband to pay Rs. 40,000 per month towards the maintenance of the child and declining maintenance to her. The husband sought a reduction in the maintenance amount, while the wife claimed a maintenance of Rs. 2 lakh for herself and an enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000 per month for the child.
The court noted that the wife as well as the husband were highly qualified and that she was getting a salary of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month while he was getting USD 7134 per month.
“Though the husband may be earning in dollars, but it cannot be overlooked that his expenditure is also in dollars. He has explained that he has a monthly expense of about USD 7,000 and is left with little money for saving. His calculations are duly supported by the documents,” the court said.
Considering their income and stating that the responsibility of maintaining the child has to be shared jointly by both of them, the court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 for the child.
The couple had got married in 2014, and the son was born in 2016. They separated in 2020.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
