A spouse seeking post-divorce maintenance in Texas must establish that they lack sufficient property to provide for minimum reasonable needs. While that requirement appears straightforward, disputes frequently arise regarding what evidence is necessary to satisfy the statutory standard. In Mehta v. Mehta, the Texas Supreme Court addressed that issue and clarified the type of evidence trial courts may consider when evaluating a request for spousal maintenance. Mehta v. Mehta, No. 23-0507 (Tex. June 20, 2025).
Background of the Case
Hannah and Manish Mehta were married for more than twenty years and had triplets during the marriage. The evidence presented at trial showed that Hannah largely stepped away from the workforce and became the children’s primary caregiver. One of the children suffered from significant medical conditions that required extensive supervision and daily care.
Following the divorce trial, the court divided the marital estate, awarded child support, and ordered Manish to pay Hannah $2,000 per month in spousal maintenance for thirty-six months. The trial court found that Hannah qualified for maintenance under Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code because she lacked sufficient property to meet her minimum reasonable needs and remained responsible for substantial caregiving obligations. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 8.051, 8.054.
Manish appealed the maintenance award. Although the court of appeals affirmed much of the divorce decree, it reversed the maintenance award. It concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to support maintenance because Hannah had not presented detailed evidence quantifying her minimum reasonable needs and monthly expenses.
The Texas Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Texas Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Hannah failed to present sufficient evidence of her minimum reasonable needs. The Court emphasized that Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code does not require a spouse seeking maintenance to present a detailed budget or itemized list of monthly expenses. Instead, trial courts may consider the entire record when determining whether a spouse has sufficient property to meet minimum reasonable needs.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court pointed to evidence that Hannah had spent much of the marriage serving as the primary caregiver for the parties’ children, including a child with significant medical needs. The record also contained evidence regarding her earning capacity, financial resources, and continuing caregiving responsibilities following the divorce. The Court concluded that this evidence allowed the trial court to reasonably determine that Hannah lacked sufficient property to provide for her minimum reasonable needs.
The Court also addressed the role of child support in the maintenance analysis. While child-support payments may affect a party’s overall financial circumstances, they are intended to benefit the children, not to satisfy a former spouse’s personal expenses. As a result, courts must consider both the child-support payments received and the costs associated with raising the children when evaluating a maintenance claim. Tex. Fam. Code § 154.001.
Based on the record before it, the Supreme Court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s maintenance award and reinstated that portion of the divorce decree.
What the Decision Means for Texas Divorce Cases
The decision serves as a reminder that Texas family courts are permitted to evaluate financial circumstances holistically rather than through rigid evidentiary requirements. Further, it highlights the importance of developing a complete factual record regarding income, property, caregiving obligations, employment prospects, and financial needs.
Those factors often carry significant weight when a court evaluates whether maintenance is warranted under Texas law. At McClure Law Group, our divorce attorneys ensure that these factors are appropriately assessed and presented in your divorce proceedings. To speak with our legal team, call us at (214) 692-8200 or message us online.
Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

