Interim Maintenance For Survival, Not Enrichment Of Wife: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside an order awarding a lump sum of Rs 4 lakh as interim maintenance to a woman, emphasising that interim maintenance is intended for the wife’s survival and not for her enrichment.

Justice G. S. Ahluwalia, presiding over the court, criticised the trial court for awarding a lump sum maintenance, observing : “Whenever an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed for grant of interim maintenance, then the trial Court must make an endeavour to ascertain the quantum of interim maintenance for which the wife is entitled on monthly basis. The interim maintenance is for the survival of wife and it is not meant for her enrichment.”

The case involved the petitioner, Vipin Kumar Belvanshi (husband), who filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent (wife), Diksha Javre (Belvanshi), in response, filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance. She claimed that the petitioner earns a monthly salary of Rs 1,10,000 and has substantial assets, including 15 acres of land and residential properties.

The Additional Judge of the Family Court in Bhopal granted the respondent a lump sum of Rs 4 lakh as interim maintenance. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that instead of a one-time lump sum, the trial court should have determined a monthly interim maintenance amount.

The High Court held that interim maintenance is granted to ensure the wife’s survival during the pendency of divorce proceedings. It should not be aimed at enriching her beyond her basic needs. The court observed that the trial court erred in awarding a lump sum amount without determining the proper monthly quantum.

“This Court is of considered opinion that awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.4 Lakh by way of interim maintenance cannot be upheld,” the court ruled.

As a result, the court set aside the trial court’s order, directing it to reassess the appropriate monthly interim maintenance within one month from the date of the ruling.