Interim maintenance may be apportioned by dividing the husband’s estimated income into family units.

The husband filed a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

During those proceedings, the wife sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act.

The Family Court assessed the husband’s income at ₹50,000–₹60,000 per month and awarded ₹8,000 each to the wife and their minor son, who lived with her

The wife appealed, seeking enhancement.

The High Court noted that the husband worked in his father’s family business, that the business’s bank statement had not been produced, and that the Family Court had found he had not disclosed his correct income

1. Whether the interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month each for the wife and minor son was adequate, having regard to the husband’s assessed income and the parties’ circumstances

2. Whether the Family Court’s assessment of the husband’s income at ₹60,000 per month warranted interference

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for interim maintenance so that a spouse without sufficient independent income can meet necessary expenses during matrimonial proceedings

In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, the Supreme Court explained that maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and provide food, clothing and shelter

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, recognises that interim maintenance may involve a reasonable estimate where parties provide incomplete or unreliable financial disclosure

Under Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, income may be apportioned among family members by allocating two shares to the earning spouse and one share to each other member, subject to the family’s financial requirements

The Court declined to disturb the Family Court’s income estimate of ₹60,000 per month, observing that the husband worked in the family business, had not disclosed the business bank statement, and had not revealed his correct income

Applying the apportionment approach in Annurita Vohra, the Court divided the assessed income into five shares: two for the husband and one each for the wife and the two children.

Each share was therefore ₹12,000.

As the wife and son lived together, their combined allocation was ₹24,000 per month.

The appeal was disposed of, and the 44-day delay in filing it was condoned.