Lawyer’s income ‘irregular’: Telangana High Court restores Rs 20,000 maintenance to wife

“The petitioner is not, and has not been shown to be, in employment. She is a member of the Bar in independent professional practice. The difference between employment and independent practice is not merely one of name. A person in employment draws a salary which is fixed, regular and capable of proof by a single document,” said the court on July 24.

It added, “The receipts of an advocate in independent practice are none of these: they are irregular, they vary from year to year, they depend on the briefs that come, and they are subject to the expenses of running a practice. Enrolment at the Bar establishes a qualification and a right to appear. It establishes nothing about income, and still less about income sufficient for the applicant’s support.”

The matrimonial case has been pending before the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, since 2010. On June 27, 2013, the family court had directed the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month to his wife and Rs 15,000 each to their two daughters as interim maintenance.

Justice Vakiti R Reddy held that the wife’s maintenance had been denied without proper assessment.

‘Being lawyer does not establish sufficient income’

The husband challenged the family court’s June 2013 order before the high court. On October 15, 2024, the high court set aside the wife’s maintenance but retained maintenance for the daughters, with directions on their arrears. The wife sought a review, saying she was not employed but practised independently as a member of the Bar. The high court found that the earlier order did not establish her actual income, whether it was sufficient for her support, or the husband’s means.

The court distinguished salaried employment from independent legal practice, noting that an advocate’s income can vary with the briefs received and the expenses of practice. The high court said the October 2024 order had inferred that she was earning from her professional status instead of examining her actual income.

“Whether that inference was in fact right or wrong is not a question on which this Court expresses, or can express, any opinion in these proceedings,” it said. The court clarified that it was not finding that the woman had insufficient income. It held only that her maintenance had been denied without the assessment required under Section 24.

The high court also noted that the October 2024 order had not considered the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in Rajnesh v Neha, which lays down the framework for determining maintenance.

‘Revisional court can’t reappreciate material’

The high court also held that the October 2024 order had exceeded the limits of revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating material considered by the family court. Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v Dilbahar Singh, the court said a revisional court does not sit as a first appellate court and cannot interfere with findings merely because another view is possible.

It hence reviewed, recalled and set aside the October 15, 2024 order, dismissed the husband’s civil revision petition and confirmed the June 27, 2013 family court order in its original terms. The court clarified that the restored order concerns only interim maintenance and does not decide the parties’ final rights, which remain before the family court.

4 weeks to file statement

The husband was directed to file within four weeks a statement showing the maintenance due, payments made and balance, along with an affidavit and asset-liability disclosure. The wife can object to it within two weeks. Once the arrears are determined, he must pay them within eight weeks and continue monthly payments until the matrimonial case is decided.

The court credited the Rs 32.10 lakh already paid, including Rs 12 lakh on November 6, 2025, and Rs 20.10 lakh on November 14, 2025, towards his liability. The contempt case was closed after the October 2024 order was set aside, with no finding on contempt or alleged non-payment. The woman can pursue legal remedies if there is a future default, it said.