In this case, Madras HC overturned the order of the Family Court, Chennai, which had directed the husband, to pay ₹30,000 p.m. as interim maintenance to his wife u/s 24 of HMA. The same amount was also awarded for the son. The husband challenged only the grant of maintenance to the wife, contending that she was financially self-sufficient.

The husband had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage before Family Court, Chennai. The respondent-wife, filed an application seeking interim maintenance for herself and her son, and another application seeking educational expenses for their son, including NEET coaching. The Family Court allowed both applications. While the husband did not dispute or challenge the order relating to maintenance and educational expenses of the son, he opposed the direction to pay interim maintenance to his wife.

The husband argued that the wife was “financially not only self-sufficient, but also affluent” and that the Family Court had passed a “mechanical order, without appreciating the pleadings.” He highlighted her position as a Director in M/s. Roentgen Scan World Pvt. Ltd., her receipt of large dividends, ownership of immovable properties, and her conduct in approaching the NCLT to restrain the release of dividends to her to claim maintenance.

On the other hand, the wife argued that the dividends were used solely for the educational expenses of their son, and claimed she had no independent regular income. She also submitted that her ownership of property was only nominal, since the property had been purchased by her father in her mother’s name, and that she had subsequently settled it in her father’s name.

Court examined Section 24 of HMA and stated that,
“The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle that she would have had in the matrimonial home.”

It also noted that the wife had indeed been receiving substantial dividend income, “For the financial years 2021–2022, the respondent has been paid a net amount of Rs.15,18,750/-, for the financial year 2022–23 a sum of Rs.16,20,000/-, and for the financial year 2023–2024, a sum of Rs.16,20,000/-.” This, along with her ownership of immovable properties, indicated that she already had sufficient means to maintain herself.

Court also disbelieved the wife’s explanation regarding property transfers,
“The explanation offered by the respondent… does not appear to be bona fide… Pending the proceedings, the settlement executed by the respondent in favour of her father clearly appears to be only in order to get over the objections of the petitioner that the respondent is affluent and owns valuable immovable properties.”

Therefore, the Court set aside the order granting ₹30,000 interim maintenance to the wife and held,“I am not able to sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, which is wholly unnecessary in the light of the substantial income that has accrued to the respondent by way of dividends.”