Case Background

The parties were married and had a five-year-old son. The husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, while the wife sought interim maintenance pending that case. The Family Court granted ₹15,000 per month from 14 March 2022 until disposal of the main petition.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Counsel for the husband argued that the wife suppressed her employment at Cognizant Technology Solutions. He produced her December 2022 pay slip, showing a net salary of ₹87,876 and gross earnings exceeding ₹1 lakh per month. He contended that she had committed perjury, since she represented herself as unemployed and dependent on him. Given her substantial income, the husband claimed she was not entitled to any maintenance, especially when he was already voluntarily paying ₹5,000 monthly for the child’s needs.

Respondent’s Contentions

Counsel for the wife countered that the maintenance claimed was meant for the minor son, not for herself. Although this was not explicitly stated in her affidavit, the tenor of her petition made it clear that the amount sought was for the child’s upkeep. He submitted that the Family Court’s order was just and reasonable, considering the expenses of raising a school-going child.

Court’s Findings

Justice P. B. Balaji observed that:

• The relationship between the parties and the existence of their minor son were undisputed.

• The wife had indeed been employed since July 2018 and earning over ₹1 lakh monthly.

• Her affidavit was vague, without clarifying whether maintenance was sought for herself or solely for the child.

• The Family Court had considered that both parents have a joint obligation to maintain their child.

• Nonetheless, given the wife’s earnings, the earlier figure of ₹15,000 required modification.

Court’s Decision

The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and modified the order as follows:

1. Interim maintenance reduced from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000 per month, payable from 14 March 2022 until the disposal of the main H.M.O.P. No. 298/2021.

2. The wife may seek adjustment of ₹5,000 per month already paid by the husband upon producing proof of such payments.

3. The husband must clear any balance amount within four weeks from receiving the order.

4. No order as to costs.

Significance

This judgment reiterates that courts must balance fairness and transparency in maintenance disputes. It underscores that:

• A spouse who is gainfully employed and conceals income may not be entitled to maintenance for themselves.

• However, the child’s right to maintenance is independent and must be protected.

• Both parents share an equal duty to provide for the child, proportional to their financial capacity.

Thus, while acknowledging the wife’s income, the High Court ensured adequate support for the minor child by granting a reduced but reasonable amount of ₹10,000 per month, ensuring equity between both parties.