A woman from Bhopal seeking interim maintenance from her husband during the pendency of divorce proceedings has been denied relief by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The court held that a financially independent person who is capable of supporting themselves cannot claim maintenance. While hearing the case, the High Court referred to William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, observing that the demand appeared akin to seeking “a pound of flesh” from the husband—something the court could not permit. The matter was heard by a single bench of Justice Vivek Jain. The woman had challenged a Family Court order rejecting her plea for interim maintenance and litigation expenses during the ongoing divorce proceedings. Married in 2022, living separately since 2023 The couple got married on November 4, 2022, and have been living separately since 2023. The husband filed for divorce before the Family Court, while the wife sought interim maintenance during the pendency of the case. On February 18, 2026, the Family Court ruled that the woman was not entitled to interim maintenance while the divorce proceedings were ongoing. She subsequently challenged that order before the High Court. Income claim revised from ₹20 lakh to ₹14 lakh per year During the proceedings, the woman acknowledged that she was employed. Initially, she stated that her annual income was around ₹20 lakh, while claiming that her husband earned more than ₹30 lakh annually. She later informed the court that her income had reduced to approximately ₹14 lakh per year and argued that she therefore required financial assistance. High Court examined salary records The High Court reviewed the woman’s salary documents and found that she earned approximately ₹1.25 lakh per month, translating to an annual income of about ₹14.81 lakh. The bench observed that this level of income was sufficient for her to maintain herself and that she could not be regarded as financially dependent. No children and no significant income disparity The court also noted that the couple has no children. Additionally, it found that the difference between the husband’s and wife’s incomes was not substantial enough to justify an award of maintenance on grounds of financial dependency. According to the court, the purpose of maintenance is to support a spouse who is genuinely in financial need or economically dependent, not to provide an additional monetary benefit to someone who is already self-sufficient. Family court order upheld After considering all the facts and circumstances, the High Court dismissed the woman’s petition and upheld the Family Court’s earlier order. Reiterating the objective of maintenance provisions, the court stated that they are intended to assist economically weaker spouses. If an individual earns enough to meet their own expenses and is capable of self-support, they are not entitled to claim maintenance. Post navigation Woman, absconding for four years, arrested:She had threatened businessman with fake rape case Couple forced to strip, then pushed into gorge:Gang attacked them with stones when they survived
