Bombay HC upholds order asking divorced woman to pay alimony to ex-husband

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court upheld a lower court’s order directing a woman to pay alimony to her ex-husband, who claims to have no means to support himself.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to intervene in the orders passed by the Nanded court directing a school teacher to pay alimony to her ex-husband, who claims to have no means of income.

The lower court, in 2017, ordered the woman to pay “Rs 3,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application till disposal of the petition" to the husband. A similar order was passed in 2019, directing the headmaster of the school to "deduct Rs 5,000 from monthly salary of wife and send the amount to the court” as arrears after she refused to pay her husband.

Both orders were challenged by the woman in a writ petition before the bench of Justice Bharati Dangre. Justice Dangre said that the application for interim maintenance filed by the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 has been rightly entertained by the Judge and the husband has been held entitled to interim maintenance while the proceedings under Section 25 are pending.

Section 25 of the Act states that the court can order the non-applicant to pay maintenance to the applicant in form of a lump sum or monthly amount for his or her lifetime. Section 24 deals with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

The man and woman involved in the case were married in April 17, 1992. The wife later sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and in 2015, the Nanded court granted the divorce.

The husband then filed plea before a lower court for grant of permanent alimony from the wife of Rs 15,000 per month. The husband contended that he did not have any source of income while the wife had acquired educational qualification of MA, BEd and was working at a school.

The husband claimed that in order to encourage the wife to obtain the degree, he had managed the household affairs, keeping aside his own ambition. He alleged that he suffered humiliation and harassment as the wife, with a malafide and dishonest intention, filed petition for divorce.