5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jul 28, 2026 11:57 AM IST
The Bombay High Court recently reduced a husband’s interim maintenance liability from Rs 50,000 to Rs 25,000 per month, observing that “equality cannot be claimed selectively” when both spouses are earning. Holding that if a wife wishes to continue living in a “premium” locality without contributing towards the home’s EMIs, the court stated that she cannot expect the husband alone to bear the financial burden while also paying higher maintenance.
Justice M M Sathaye was hearing the plea filed by a 41-year-old businessman and said if a husband, who alone is paying the EMIs on his properties, seeks to sell one of them to meet his monthly expenses, including maintenance and mounting arrears, “no fault” can be found with such a request.
“In a dispute between husband and wife, if wife expects a luxury of staying at a premium location like Andheri, Mumbai without paying EMI from her own pocket and the very availability of such premium location flat/residence is because the husband is paying EMI, then it cannot be expected from the husband, who is supposed to pay EMI or paying EMI, will not plead it as a reason for reduction in maintenance amount,” July 24 order read.
Noting that the wife was unwilling to shift from Andheri even to the Panvel flat, let alone the husband’s native place, the court added, “Equality can not be claimed selectively and certainly not when both parties are earning. If lifestyle is to be maintained, both parties must contribute.”
Mounting EMI dues, maintenance
The man, represented by advocate Pushpa Ganediwal, argued that the wife is an educated lady having an MBA degree and the man is a chartered accountant (CA) by profession who was employed with a good salary before Covid-19 and was staying in Mumbai and had taken housing loans for purchase of two flats, one at Andheri other at Panvel.
He added that during Covid-19, he lost his job and his income decreased, and he was required to move to his native place in Madhya Pradesh, where he is practising as a CA. He further claimed that presently he is required to pay the bank’s equated monthly installments (EMI) of both Andheri and Panvel flats apart from spending on himself.
He further added that he has to maintain his parents at the native place and pay maintenance, and due to a decline in earnings, he is facing financial difficulty.
Story continues below this ad
He claimed that his wife is not ready to come and stay with him at his native place. He further added that he is ready to pay Rs 25,000 per month if his wife shifts to the Panvel Flat so that the Andheri flat can be sold and arrears can be cleared.
It was further submitted that though the EMI for Andheri is about Rs 60,000 and the EMI for the Panvel flat is about Rs 40,000, the difference between the market value of the two flats is far more considerable, which has material bearing on the aspect of sale proceeds.
It was further submitted that the sale of the Andheri flat is necessary for paying other EMI amounts as well as for clearing arrears of maintenance which are mounting by the day.
The wife and her son, around 12-13 years old, were represented by advocate Akshay Shetty, who submitted that the husband left the matrimonial house, which is the Andheri flat.
Story continues below this ad
‘Covid-19 affected professions, businesses’
The high court noted that the wife is earning at least Rs 15,000 per month as salary on the date of the last order by the family court in January 2025. It further observed that the Covid-19 pandemic had affected professions and businesses across the country and the husband could not be treated as an exception.
“Therefore, the petitioner-husband can not be taken as an exception. Therefore, it can not be said that there is no explanation for reduction in income,” it added.
It further noted that the finding of the family court that the present income of the husband can be safely considered at Rs lakh to Rs 1.5 lakh per month does not appear to be based on any objective calculation or figures.
The high court also noted that according to the submission of the wife’s counsel, she is not contributing anything in the EMIs to be paid for keeping both the flats while the husband is ready if the wife wishes to occupy the Panvel flat.
Story continues below this ad
“Petitioner-husband is fully justified in contending that he is not in a position to bear the payment of both EMIs for Andheri flat as well as Panvel flat and therefore seeking reduction in the maintenance amount,” the court said.
The court also observed that where both spouses are earning and wish to provide the best education to their child, both are expected to contribute towards educational expenses. It added that decisions regarding the child’s school, its location and fee structure should not be taken unilaterally by one parent without consulting the other, who is expected to contribute financially.
Justice M M Sathaye noted that the wife is not contributing anything in the EMIs to be paid for keeping both the flats.