INTRODUCTION –
Indian marriage is not only a social institution but also an institution with deep roots in law. When things turn sour and legal proceedings begin, whether for divorce, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights, the financial burden can fall heavily on one of the spouses, particularly if they are not earning an income. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is a provision made for rectifying that disparity. It is a section that provides interim financial support to a spouse with no independent income adequate for his/her maintenance or the expenses of legal proceedings. Essentially, it provides for both parties to engage in legal battles with some degree of equality and dignity, irrespective of their financial situation at the moment.
SECTION 24
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act states –
“Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the costs of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
1[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.][1]”
The provision is significant in the sense that it is gender-neutral and permits either spouse to seek maintenance during litigation. However, the meaning and operation of this section have undergone a significant shift in recent years due to several judgments issued by the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS –
A landmark case is the latest one of Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini (2023)[2], in which the Delhi High Court made it clear that if someone can earn but refuses to work without sufficient reason, he or she cannot rely upon the other spouse bearing the complete financial burden of the proceedings. The court made it clear that Section 24 was never intended to incentivise deliberate idleness. Instead, its role is to sustain truly dependent spouses who are unable to maintain themselves while litigation is pending. This case serves to reinforce that maintenance is a need-based relief and not a means of unjust enrichment.
In Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000)[3], the Madhya Pradesh High Court went even stronger on this stance. The wife in this case was extremely well-educated, possessing degrees such as M.Sc. and M.Ed., but she did not attempt to gain employment. The court held that such behaviour must be discouraged. It held that in a progressive society, capable people, especially educated women, must be encouraged to be self-sufficient. The ruling expressly stated that the law is not there to encourage idleness and that capable people must make efforts to sustain themselves instead of relying entirely on maintenance. This case supports the maxim that maintenance is not for individuals who are capable of earning but unwilling to do so.
The Madras High Court, in Kumaresan v. Aswathi (2002)[4], added a valuable gloss to the debate. The court noted that the determinative test under Section 24 is whether the petitioner had “sufficient” earnings, not merely “any” earnings. If the income of the spouse is not enough to live a decent life or cover litigation expenses, then maintenance can be ordered. However, if it is determined that the spouse has a good amount of income or support, maintenance cannot be awarded. This ruling emphasises that the courts do not strictly adhere to a dichotomous (employed/unemployed) framework. Rather, they examine the larger aspect of whether the income is sufficient for sustenance.
The Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1974)[5] considered an identical issue under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but its dictum is highly apposite to Section 24 of the HMA too. The court explained that the means and income of the wife are material considerations while determining maintenance. It also added that the court must not consider the financial ability of the husband in a vacuum. The financial status of the wife also has a significant role to play in deciding the entitlement and quantum of maintenance. The court also clarified that the maintenance can be altered if there is a variation in the financial status of either party. Such a notion has become the basis of how courts today examine maintenance cases. This case basically established that maintenance is not a fundamental right but is rather subject to conditions and depends on situations.
Another significant judgment is Manish Jian v. Akanksha Jain (2017)[6], wherein the Supreme Court considered the position where the wife, being educated, did not have any present income. The Court held that education or earning capacity is not equivalent to having income. Therefore, to simply say that a person is qualified or can get work is not sufficient to refuse maintenance. What is important is whether, at the moment, they can sustain themselves. The court also made it clear that the parents’ wealth is not important. Maintenance is given based on the person’s need and not their family’s financial position. Interestingly, the Supreme Court lowered the maintenance amount determined by the High Court, indicating that it also looks at whether the amount ordered is extravagant or too heavy for the spouse to pay. This case reflects the court’s effort to balance both hardship and compassion.
If we consider these judgments together, a couple of principles are clear. First, Section 24 is gender-neutral, but “effort-non-neutral”. Courts require parties requesting maintenance to show not only a lack of income, but also a good-faith effort to fend for themselves. Second, the idea of “sufficient income” is relative. Even if the spouse is working, it has to be sufficient to pay everyday expenses and legal fees. Third, maintenance is not in order to continue the same lifestyle that was followed during marriage, but to provide for a dignified level of living while litigation persists. And lastly, courts are making parties more transparent with financial disclosures and affidavits.
ANALYSIS –
From a theological point of view, Section 24 is consistent with Article 14[7] of the Constitution of India by extending equal protection of law to both spouses. It also appeals to the doctrine of equity as well as the concept of need-based justice. The underlying reason is that no litigation should turn out to be an economic war, and the wealthier spouse emerges victorious because the other cannot pay for a lawyer or sustenance.
The courts are also inclined to apply Section 24 in conjunction with other legislation, for instance, the Domestic Violence Act or Section 125 CrPC[8]. Still, they do this while taking care that there is no duplication or double benefit. The rationale is straightforward: one cannot receive maintenance under more than one statute for identical needs without reasons. Section 24 is often employed as a tactic for litigation, particularly in urban family courts. Occasionally, one spouse will actively postpone proceedings so that they may receive maintenance. Conversely, some genuinely poor individuals have to work their way through an elaborate web of paperwork to receive simple support. This demonstrates how practical reality tends to fall short of theoretical ideals.
The courts now usually ask for detailed financial affidavits from both sides. These contain information regarding income, assets, expenses, liabilities, and standard of living. This action provides greater transparency and aids the court in making a justifiable decision. However, it also implies that the process is becoming more procedural and could disadvantage those without access to legal knowledge or good representation. Recently, the courts have also ruled against giving maintenance to individuals who deliberately conceal their incomes or make false representations. Courts are getting more stringent in gauging the behaviour of both spouses. If a spouse is determined to have misled the court, that alone can go a long way towards altering the final order.
CONCLUSION –
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is an essential provision that ensures justice in matrimonial litigation. It makes sure that no wife is denied justice because of economic helplessness. But simultaneously, the judiciary has explained that maintenance cannot be a blank cheque. Maintenance has to fill the gap during the litigation period, not to incentivise inertia or penalise success. The courts are taking great care in balancing duties and rights, and they hope that both sides will play fair. Such cases provide important lessons in how statutory law collides with social reality. They call to mind the fact that provisions made in the law must keep pace with society, and the courts have a crucial role to play in interpreting them both with sensitivity and circumspection. Section 24 is not only a protector of the weak anymore, it’s also a mirror to varying gender roles, economic realities, and the court’s adherence to justice being even.
Author(s) Name: Sreelatha Daggumati (Mahindra University)
References:
[1] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 24.
[2] Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini, 2023 DHC 8322 (DB)
[3] Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (4) MP HT 457.
[4] Kumaresan v. Aswathi, (2002) 2 MLJ 760.
[5] Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 (India).
[6] Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, AIR 2017 SC 1640.
[7] Constitution of India, art. 14.
[8] Code of Criminal Procedure 1974, s 125.
