In this case, Bombay HC refused to grant interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month to a wife residing in US, holding that a spouse who is financially independent and earning substantially more than husband cannot seek maintenance merely because the cost of living abroad is high.

The wife filed an appeal challenging Family Court's judgment granting divorce to husband on grounds of adultery and desertion. Family Court had also refused to grant permanent alimony, awarded custody of elder son to husband, and directed husband to pay only ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses. During pendency of appeal, wife filed an application u/s 24 HMA seeking ₹1 lakh per month as interim maintenance.

Wife contended that although she was employed in US, her income was insufficient to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. She submitted that she was residing in a rented apartment, bearing expenses of raising the younger son, and facing uncertainty regarding the continuation of her employment. She further argued that husband possessed several properties and was financially well-off.

The husband opposed the application by pointing out that wife had been residing in US since 2011, is employed, and is earning a gross monthly salary of USD 8,700. He submitted that Family Court had already examined her financial status and found that she earned substantially more than him. He further stated that he was bearing the educational expenses of their elder son studying in Australia, supporting his elderly parents, and had remarried after divorce, thereby taking on additional family responsibilities.

High Court noted that wife possessed professional qualifications and had been living abroad for nearly 15 years. It observed that salary documents produced by wife herself established that she continued to earn a substantial income of USD 8,700 gross per month. Court held that she had sufficient independent means to support herself and therefore could not be regarded as financially dependent on the husband.

Therefore, High Court found that the wife was a highly qualified professional earning substantially more than the husband and had failed to establish any financial incapacity warranting interim maintenance. 

Accordingly, Bombay HC dismissed the application seeking interim maintenance.