
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to grant interim maintenance to a wife earning around ₹1.25 lakh per month, upholding the Family Court’s order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court observed that there was no significant financial disparity between the spouses, as their incomes were comparable and the wife had no dependent children.
It noted that maintenance is meant to address financial need, not to create undue advantage.
Terming the plea as an “attempt to extract a pound of flesh,” the Court held that such claims cannot be sustained in the absence of genuine financial hardship.
[Smt. Neha Adlak v. Rahul Kawadkar]
S PavithraBookmark