The court was considering an appeal by a woman who had sought more maintenance from her husband following a final divorce settlement. In October 2001, her former spouse had paid her a lump sum settlement of 85,000 rupees, superseding an earlier order that he pay her 450 rupees a month.
However the unnamed later learned that her husband, who worked as a bus conductor, had started earning more and went back to court to request additional maintenance payments, using his payslips as proof. She also claimed they had lived together again but could not prove this. The court dismissed her application and the woman appealed.
But the High Court was unsympathetic. Justice Roshan Dalvi said: “The very thrust of the application is to grant additional maintenance because of additional income. Once the petition is settled between the parties upon receipt of a lump sum amount, there is no question of granting more maintenance just because the husband continues to earn more.”
“Every husband, after the settlement, continues to earn and is expected to earn more as time passes.”
Photo of the Bombay High Court by Michael Siegel via Wikipedia under a Creative Commons licence