MUMBAI: In a significant ruling, the Bombay high court recently held that a divorced wife cannot seek enhancement of her maintenance amount that was decreed before her husband’s death. But the ex-wife can continue to recover her maintenance for her lifetime and also arrears of maintenance from his assets, even after the husband passes, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held.A woman from Malabar Hill had filed an appeal in 2023 against a family court order denying enhancement of the maintenance sum after her husband died in 2012.“The wife’s right to maintenance is a “a right personal to her” and cannot be alienated. Her claim of maintenance is an entitlement that holds good during her lifetime and extinguishes on her death,” said Justice Dangre, who authored the judgment. “Thus the wife can recover maintenance already directed and quantified, through the assets or estate of the dead husband.”The maintenance claim cannot be passed on or transferred on the wife’s death, HC clarified. The judgment was available on Tuesday.HC, agreeing with advocate Pradip Chavan, said consequences of allowing enhancement against late husband would result in absurdity, uncertainty and would open the floodgate of litigation. It would defeat principles of finality in succession law, the bench added.The wife’s appeal raised specific questions of law. In Jan 2026, the high court framed these questions as one, whether a divorce decree that provides for monthly maintenance could be enforced against the estate of the late husband by the divorced wife. The answer, HC said, was yes, it can. The second, more important one, was if the “right to seek enhancement of permanent maintenance can be enforced against the estate of the late husband.” the HC said, no, it can’t.After analysing the Special Marriage Act, HC said for any enhancement or modification, cancellation of maintenance, both – husband and wife – must be alive. A wife seeking enhanced maintenance is essentially seeking fresh rights, requiring fresh hearing and fresh decision-making. She is not enforcing her existing maintenance already quantified, the HC explained.