An earning wife is not barred from claiming interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA; the court must assess whether her income suffices for her to maintain a standard of living equivalent to that enjoyed during the marriage, relative to the husband's significantly higher financial capacity.

UDGMENT

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Order dated 01.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟) passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Family Court‟), in HMA No. 1074/2020, titled Hemant Badhani v. Shikha Badhani. By the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the „HMA‟) filed by the appellant-wife, awarding maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month along with all school-related expenses for the minor daughter. However, the learned Family Court declined the appellant's claim for her own maintenance. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-wife has approached this Court seeking modification of the Impugned Order, enhancement of maintenance for the child, and grant of maintenance for herself.

BRIEF FACTS

2. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present case arises, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2013, according to the Hindu rites and customs, in Delhi. From this wedlock, a daughter was born on 08.08.2016. It is the admitted position that, due to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since October 2019. Since the date of separation, the custody of the minor child has remained with the appellant.

3. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA on the grounds of cruelty. In response thereto, the appellant-wife filed her written statement, denying the allegations and simultaneously moved an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking interim maintenance for herself and her daughter.

4. The appellant contended that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home without any fault of her own, and has since been residing with her parents. She is employed as an Assistant Professor in a college under the Delhi University and, despite her qualifications, earns a limited income. On the other hand, the respondent is employed as a Senior Computer Scientist with Adobe Systems, USA, and draws a substantial income.

5. The appellant further submitted that the respondent has not made any voluntary contribution towards the maintenance of the minor child or the appellant herself, except for sporadic payments of school fees in late 2020. It was only after the intervention of the Court that the respondent started making regular contributions for the child‟s expenses.

6. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and financial affidavits of the parties, passed the Impugned Order dated 01.03.2024, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 35,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor daughter in addition to all school-related expenses, but declined to award any maintenance to the appellant.

7. According to the appellant, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the financial disparity between the parties. While the respondent‟s annual income exceeds Rs. 1.5 crores (as reflected in his ITRs and supported by bank statements, perks, RSUs, and other employment benefits), her monthly income is approximately Rs. 1,25,000/-. The appellant contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded for the child was insufficient and that she too is entitled to maintenance to sustain the standard of living to which she was accustomed during cohabitation.

8. Aggrieved by the Impugned O