The court was strict on asking for maintenance, said – “It’s like tearing the husband’s flesh”

Madhya Pradesh High Court Recently made a strong comment on a petition filed by a woman seeking interim maintenance from her husband. The court said that the woman herself is earning so much that she can easily meet her expenses.

Justice Vivek Jain, referring to The Merchant of Venice, described the woman’s demand as ‘trying to extract a pound of flesh’. She said, ‘This petition is an attempt to forcibly take advantage of the husband, which cannot be accepted.’

What did the court say?

The court found that the income of both husband and wife is almost equal and they do not have any children whose responsibility they have to bear. The court also said that the woman’s income is more than Rs 1 lakh per month. On this basis, the High Court upheld the decision of the Family Court in which interim maintenance was refused to the woman.

What is the whole matter?

This case was related to the petition in which the woman had challenged the order given by the Family Court on 18 February 2026. The family court had refused to give him financial assistance and litigation expenses during the divorce proceedings. According to the information, both of them were married on November 4, 2022, but they are living separately since June 2023. The couple does not have any children. Later the husband filed a divorce petition.

During the divorce process, the woman applied for interim maintenance in the family court. She admitted in her application that she works and earns around Rs 20 lakh annually. She also claimed that her husband’s annual income was Rs 30 lakh, although the husband rejected this claim.

Why did the family court reject the petition?

The Family Court rejected her petition saying that the woman was already earning well and had no dependents or additional financial responsibilities. When the matter reached the High Court, the woman said that her financial condition had changed and her salary had reduced to Rs 14.81 lakh annually.

However, the High Court said that even on this basis, her monthly income is around Rs 1.25 lakh, which clearly shows that she can meet her own expenses. The court accepted that the Family Court had correctly assessed the case and there was no legal error in its decision, due to which the High Court had to intervene. In view of all these facts, the High Court did not consider the woman’s demand for interim maintenance as appropriate and rejected her petition.