Delhi High Court Declares: No Pendente-Lite Maintenance Where Applicant Has Adequate Means and Respondent Is Financially Incapacitated
(An authoritative commentary on Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma, 2025 DHC 6385-DB)

1. Introduction

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has delivered a significant ruling on 4 August 2025 in Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma. The case revolves around the refusal of interim maintenance sought by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Having lived separately from her husband for nearly four decades, the appellant–wife challenged the Family Court’s order denying her ₹60,000 per month pendente-lite maintenance and ₹1,00,000 as litigation expenses.

Key issues before the High Court were:

• Whether a spouse with independent income, property, and adult earning children can legitimately seek Section 24 maintenance;
• The relevance of the respondent-husband’s financial collapse and liabilities post-retirement;
• The interplay between Section 24 HMA and the disqualification contained in Section 125(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) where parties live apart by mutual consent.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Affirming the Family Court, the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and ruled that:

• Section 24 relief is not automatic; the applicant must show genuine financial distress.
• The appellant enjoyed multiple income streams—teacher’s pension, private tuitions, matured LIC policies, and support from two adult sons—thus failed the “inability to maintain herself” test.
• The respondent suffered acute financial incapacity: insolvency of his employer (Reliance Communication) deprived him of retirement benefits; he incurred heavy debts for subsistence and medical needs; at 73, he was unfit for fresh employment.
• Parties had been living separately since 1987 by mutual arrangement; hence, Section 125(4) CrPC furnished an additional ground to doubt maintenance entitlement.
• No infirmity existed in the Family Court’s discretionary denial; observations would not influence the pending bigamy‐related petition.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, (2010) 12 SCC 242 – Supreme Court underscored that Section 24 aims to prevent financial handicaps in matrimonial litigation but is conditioned on the applicant’s lack of independent income. The Bench invoked this principle to highlight the discretionary, need-based nature of the relief.
• SUKHDEV SINGH v. SUKHBIR KAUR, 2025 INSC 197 – Recent Supreme Court authority clarifying that courts must balance both spouses’ resources and obligations; relied upon to emphasise a “judicious equilibrium” rather than mechanical allowance.
• Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 – Famous for articulating criteria for determining income and reasonable expenses in maintenance disputes; the Bench quoted its dicta on considering spiralling inflation and realistic living standards.
• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 – The leading judgment prescribing uniform affidavit disclosure; although Rajnesh addressed maintenance under several statutes, its guidelines on income affidavits informed the High Court’s appraisal of the parties’ financial data.
• Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724 – Reaffirmed that maintenance obligations must respect the paying party’s capacity. The Delhi Bench borrowed its “just balance” dictum to rule out an unfair burden on an elderly, debt-ridden husband.
• Rishi Dev Anand v. Devinder Kaur, AIR 1985 Del 40 – A Delhi precedent where maintenance was refused during the husband’s ill-health and income hiatus; applied by analogy to recognise genuine incapacity.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted by the Court

The High Court’s reasoning may be mapped through the following steps:

1. Statutory Objective: Section 24’s object is temporary sustenance, not lifestyle equalisation. The Bench reiterated legislative intent to shield the “needy” spouse only.
2. Requirement of Demonstrated Need: Relying on Neeta Rakesh Jain, the Court insisted the applicant prove absence of adequate income. The appellant’s pension, tuition income (~₹40,000), self-acquired property and matured LIC policies together displaced her plea of impecuniosity.
3. Comparative Hardship Test: Mirroring Manish Jain, the Court compared both spouses’ positions. The husband’s loss of retirement corpus, outstanding debts (₹23 lakh), advanced age, and lack of job prospects eclipsed the wife’s claimed hardships.
4. Section 125(4) CrPC Interface: Though Section 24 HMA and Section 125 CrPC are independent, the latter’s disentitlement where spouses live separately by mutual consent was treated as a persuasive consideration, enlarging judicial discretion to deny relief when parties had voluntarily chosen separate residence.
5. Delay & Conduct: The wife’s inaction for 34 years and her sudden activation of claims post-alleged bigamy cast doubt on bona fides. Courts may evaluate conduct though Section 24 does not expressly prescribe it.
6. Discretionary Deference: Appellate interference with Section 24 orders is limited to patent irregularity. Finding none, the Bench refused to tinker with the Family Court’s assessment.

3.3 Potential Impact on Indian Family Law

• Elevated Threshold for Elderly, Financially-Secure Applicants: The judgment signals that retirement or age alone will not unlock Section 24 relief if the applicant has investments, pension, or support systems.
• Recognition of Respondent’s Post-Retirement Insolvency: Courts may increasingly take into account systemic employer defaults (e.g., insolvency proceedings) while gauging a party’s paying capacity.
• Interplay with Section 125(4) CrPC: Though not determinative, voluntary long-term separation can influence Section 24 outcomes. Expect litigants to cite Yashwani Verma for dovetailing both provisions.
• Discouragement of Opportunistic Litigation: Applicants who invoke maintenance decades after separation without fresh justifying circumstances may face heightened scrutiny.
• Template for Assessing Income in the Gig/Post-retirement Economy: The case illustrates courts’ willingness to dissect bank statements, tuition earnings, insurance proceeds and adult-children support when conventional salaries are absent.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Pendente-Lite Maintenance: Temporary financial allowance granted during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings to ensure participation on equal footing.
• Section 24 HMA: Empowers either spouse to seek maintenance and litigation expenses where he/she “has no independent income sufficient for her or his support.”
• Section 125(4) CrPC: Bars maintenance to a wife who is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband, or lives separately by mutual consent.
• Income Affidavit: A sworn statement detailing salary, investments, assets, liabilities, and expenditure, mandated after Rajnesh v. Neha for uniformity.
• Bigamy Petition (Section 17 HMA): A petition seeking declaration that a second marriage contracted during subsistence of an earlier Hindu marriage is void.
• ‘Adequate Means’ Test: Not merely absence of destitution; courts examine whether the applicant can reasonably maintain the standard of living enjoyed during cohabitation.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma fortifies the jurisprudence that Section 24 HMA is a welfare, not windfall, provision. By refusing interim maintenance to a financially capable applicant and weighing the respondent’s demonstrable insolvency, the Court reiterated a balanced, fact-centric approach. The decision’s nuanced integration of Section 125(4) CrPC considerations and its sensitivity to contemporary retirement vulnerabilities make it a persuasive precedent for future maintenance litigation across India.

“The law ensures that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending a matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds—yet it does not authorise the economically secure to treat Section 24 as an annuity at the cost of an impoverished spouse.” — Delhi High Court (2025)

Going forward, parties petitioning for pendente-lite maintenance must be prepared to make full-bodied financial disclosures and demonstrate bona-fide need, while respondents confronted with exaggerated claims can rely on Yashwani Verma to seek equitable relief.