The Bombay High Court, while hearing a case, observed that the principle of equality cannot be invoked selectively. The Court said that when both spouses are earning, the expenses of running the household and supporting the child’s education should be shared by both partners.
The observation came while granting relief to a man who had sought a reduction in the fixed monthly alimony awarded to his wife and minor son.
A single bench of Justice MM Sathaye passed the order last week, setting aside the Family Court’s January 2025 order that had directed the man to pay ₹50,000 per month as alimony to his wife and son. The High Court has now reduced the amount to ₹25,000 per month
Husband paying EMIs for two houses
The Court noted in its order that the man is currently paying the EMIs for two houses. One of these properties is located in Mumbai’s Andheri area, where his wife and son reside, while the other is in Panvel, Navi Mumbai.
The man is currently living in Bihar, and the Court observed that his wife is not contributing towards the repayment of the home loans for either of the two properties.
Wife refused to shift house
In his petition, the man had requested the High Court to reduce the monthly alimony from ₹50,000 to ₹25,000. He had asked his wife to either move to Bihar and live with him or shift to their Panvel house, allowing him to sell the Andheri property and ease his financial burden. However, the wife declined to do so.
The Court observed that no fault could be found with the husband’s request. The bench stated that if the wife preferred the convenience of living in a premium locality like Andheri but was not contributing towards the home loan EMI, the husband could not be prevented from citing this as a reason for seeking a reduction in alimony.
Both should contribute financially
The Court stated that the principle of equality cannot be applied selectively, particularly when both parties are earning. It observed that if a certain lifestyle is to be maintained, both spouses must contribute towards it.
When both husband and wife have an income and wish to provide their child with a good education, both are expected to share the financial responsibilities.
During the hearing, the man informed the Court that he had lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is currently employed at a much lower salary and is facing financial difficulties.
The Court acknowledged that the pandemic had affected the careers and businesses of many people, and accepted that the decline in his income was a genuine consequence of those circumstances.
