The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of granting maintenance to a woman living in her marital home, acknowledging her right to support essential expenses. It rejected a husband's petition contesting the interim maintenance awarded by a Family Court to his estranged wife and their minor son.

The Family Court had issued an order instructing the husband to provide Rs. 15,000 monthly for his wife's maintenance and an additional Rs. 10,000 for the support of their 10-year-old son.

Justice Neela Gokhale highlighted that simply residing in the marital home doesn't negate a woman's entitlement to a fair maintenance sum. She emphasized the continued necessity for financial support covering essential needs like food, healthcare, clothing, and the educational expenses of the child.

The court emphasized that the primary goal behind granting interim maintenance is to prevent the dependent spouse from falling into destitution or homelessness due to the breakdown of the marriage. It clarified that this provision isn't intended as a punitive measure against the other party involved.

The couple, married in 2012, faced irreconcilable differences, resulting in their separation in November 2021. The husband initiated divorce proceedings, citing mental cruelty, while the wife sought interim maintenance for herself and their son, invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In the High Court, the husband's legal representatives contended that the maintenance awarded to his wife was unjustifiably high, citing her residence in the matrimonial home owned by him and her income from freelancing.

They highlighted the husband's modest lifestyle and the fact that he rented a place to attend to his unwell mother.

The wife's legal representatives presented evidence via affidavits and documents indicating that the husband, employed as an engineer, earned approximately Rs. 1.3 lakhs monthly. They highlighted his ownership of a car, shares, and substantial expenditure of over Rs. 5 lakhs on their son's education within a year. They emphasized the wife's unemployment and sole responsibility for raising their son, asserting her entitlement to interim relief.

The High Court concluded that the Family Court had thoroughly examined pertinent factors and granted a maintenance amount that was fair and ample. It was deemed neither burdensome for the husband nor insufficient to meet the essential needs of the wife, striking a balanced decision.

In affirming the Family Court's decision, the High Court observed that the husband was capable of meeting the maintenance expenses without enduring unreasonable financial strain or hardship.