The Bombay High Court has upheld a lower court’s decision directing a woman to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to her unemployed husband who also suffers from medical ailments. The woman stated that she had resigned from the bank where she had been working as a branch manager.
The woman had attached a resignation letter from 2019 to support her claim of being unemployed, despite which the court upheld the order.
The lower court had held that the woman was paying a home loan and also looking after the expenses of their minor child. “It is necessary for her to disclose the source from which the expenses were being met. It is therefore clear that even after resignation from the bank, she was earning and had a source of income,” the lower court in Kalyan had stated.
The husband had filed for divorce in 2016. Both of them filed applications seeking interim maintenance from each other. While the lower court dismissed the application of the woman, it allowed the application of the husband directing his wife to pay him Rs 10,000 as he submitted that she was earning about Rs 65,000 a month at the bank. The wife challenged the order in the High Court.
In the high court, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh noted that the woman’s advocate did not dispute that as of today the woman is earning. The bench noted that even in trial court, the woman did not file any documentary evidence in respect of her income. “If it was the contention of the wife that she had the liability for payment of certain expenses, it was necessary for her to place the same on record so that the trial court could have assessed the quantum of maintenance which is to be granted to the husband,” noted Justice Deshmukh.
The bench further added that at the stage of grant of interim maintenance in the absence of any material, a certain element of guesswork is involved and considering the income of the parties, the trial court ascertains the quantum of maintenance.
The bench lastly said that “Even if it is taken that the wife has certain expenses to be met, it was incumbent upon her to place the necessary material before the trial court so that it would have been in position to assess the quantum of maintenance to be granted. Unfortunately, the same has not been done in this case
