A husband’s existing support payments and deficient income disclosure justify sustaining interim maintenance.

The husband filed a divorce petition, in which the wife sought interim maintenance under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act. The Family Court awarded her ₹1,10,000 per month from the date of its order until disposal of the divorce petition, and ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.

The husband challenged that order, contending that the wife, a qualified dental specialist, was capable of earning and that he was already paying ₹1,03,382 per month. He also argued that the parties’ major son was not entitled to maintenance.

The wife disputed the husband’s account of his income and relied, among other things, on his existing payments to her.

1. Whether the Family Court’s interim award of ₹1,10,000 per month to the wife warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227, given the husband’s claims about her earning capacity and his existing payments.

2. Whether the husband’s statement of assets and liabilities adequately disclosed his financial position in accordance with the principles in Rajnesh v. Neha.

3. Whether the husband’s challenge, including his contention concerning maintenance for the major son, justified relief when the Family Court’s operative order granted maintenance to the wife.

Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act provides for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in matrimonial proceedings.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court prescribed disclosure of parties’ income, assets, liabilities and expenses through statements of assets and liabilities, and contemplated further disclosure where financial circumstances or relevant information change.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court found that the husband’s statement of assets and liabilities did not adequately set out his actual income from different sources and instead stated a net figure after deductions, despite his professional income, properties and other receipts.

It also considered that he had been paying the wife ₹1,03,382 per month, which supported the conclusion that she was not then maintaining herself independently and that he had the capacity to contribute.

The Court rejected the husband’s reliance on the major son’s status because the Family Court’s operative order awarded maintenance to the wife, not the son.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the award and considered the challenge an unjustified use of judicial time.

It directed the Family Court to examine both parties’ statements of assets and liabilities and, if it found suppression, to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha.

Both parties were permitted to produce further evidence or documents, including the additional documents filed before the High Court; pending applications were closed.