Bombay HC Boosts Divorced Wife's Maintenance to ₹3.5 Lakh Per Month

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has sharply increased the monthly maintenance payable by a Pune-based businessman to his divorced wife — from ₹50,000 to ₹3.5 lakh — after finding that he had concealed his financial strength and misled the court.

Court Observes False Claims of Low Income

A bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the husband’s claim of earning only ₹6 lakh annually was “farcical,” given his family’s sprawling real estate and finance empire worth over ₹1,000 crore. He has been directed to deposit ₹42 lakh as a year’s arrears within four weeks.

Court Says Husband Misled Judiciary With False Statements

“He has not come to court with clean hands. There is not only material suppression of his financial strength to undermine the application of legal principles for considering the quantum of maintenance, there are also positive misstatements in his claims to be a person of poor means unable to pay even the low maintenance originally granted,” the court stated.

Couple Married in 1997, Divorced in 2023 After Cruelty Allegations

Married in 1997, the couple separated in 2013. In 2023, a Pune family court granted divorce on grounds of cruelty and fixed permanent alimony at ₹50,000 per month. Both appealed — the wife sought enhancement, and the husband sought cancellation, citing poor means.

HC Rejects Husband’s Plea, Cites Lavish Lifestyle and Wealth Transfers

Rejecting his plea, the HC said his portrayal of financial distress was “farcical,” noting that his family ran multiple real estate and finance businesses valued at over ₹1,000 crore. “By pointing to his Income Tax Returns to show taxable income of just ₹6 lakh annually, he would have the court believe that his lifestyle is financed by ₹50,000 per month. On the face of it, the import is farcical,” Justice Sundaresan wrote.

Evidence of Luxury Lifestyle Contradicted His Claims

The court cited evidence of luxury parties, foreign holidays, and transfers exceeding ₹10 crore to his brother, calling his claims “misleading and unjust.” It also took exception to his argument that his divorced wife should cut down on their daughter’s extracurricular expenses.

“That a mother dares to work hard and even claim to depend on her own brother… cannot be a disqualification for expecting that the daughter’s expenses be met by the father, commensurate with his own standard of living,” the bench observed.

Maintenance Enhanced to ₹3.5 Lakh Per Month

Holding that ₹50,000 was “hardly reasonable or logical,” the bench enhanced the wife’s monthly maintenance to ₹3.5 lakh.