Analysis of Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Maintenance Pendente Lite and Expenses of Proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter "HMA") provides a crucial interim measure for spouses embroiled in matrimonial litigation. It empowers the court to grant maintenance pendente lite (during the pendency of the proceeding) and cover necessary litigation expenses to a spouse who lacks sufficient independent income for their support and the costs of the legal battle. This provision is rooted in the principle of ensuring that neither party is disadvantaged in pursuing or defending matrimonial claims due to financial constraints. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 24, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements to elucidate its scope, application, and impact on matrimonial law in India.

The Legislative Framework of Section 24

Object and Purpose

The primary objective of Section 24 of the HMA is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, enabling them to maintain themselves and meet the necessary expenses of the litigation.[1] As observed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shmt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, the section is designed for situations where either the wife or the husband "has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding."[2] The Allahabad High Court in Arun Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey further elaborated that Section 24 serves as a "stop-gap arrangement" and an "aid to the legal expenses," intending to create a "fiction of equality" by financially supporting the wife (or husband) to pursue the case diligently and on an equal footing.[3] The provision ensures that a spouse is not handicapped by poverty from prosecuting or defending a matrimonial case.[4] The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha And Another emphasize that maintenance laws, including interim maintenance provisions, are a measure of social justice, intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy.[5]

Section 24 reads: "Where in any proceedings 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 expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceedings such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable."[2], [6]

Scope: "Any Proceeding Under This Act"

The language of Section 24, "Where in any proceeding under this Act," signifies its broad applicability. The Kerala High Court in T.P. Sudheesh Babu v. Sherly P. affirmed that the powers under Section 24 can be invoked when "any proceeding" under the HMA is pending before the court.[6] This includes proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), judicial separation (Section 10), divorce (Section 13), and nullity of marriage (Sections 11 and 12).[6], [4] Thus, the validity of the marriage being questioned in a nullity petition does not bar the applicability of Section 24.[6]

Prerequisites for Granting Relief

Absence of Sufficient Independent Income

The cornerstone for invoking Section 24 is the applicant's lack of "independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding."[2] The Madras High Court in Rohini v. R. Durairaj, citing the Supreme Court in Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, held that the relevant consideration is that the spouse seeking maintenance should not have independent income sufficient for her/his support.[7] The mere fact that a wife is "capable of earning" may not disentitle her if she is not actually earning, though this factor can be considered. In Shailja & Anr. (S) v. Khobbanna (S), the High Court had reduced maintenance on the ground that the wife was capable of earning, but the Supreme Court's order, while noting this, affirmed the Family Court's initial grant (subject to modifications not entirely clear from the snippet).[8] The emphasis remains on the actual financial status and sufficiency of income at the time of the application.[7]

Determination of Quantum

Guiding Principles

The quantum of maintenance pendente lite and expenses is determined by the court based on the petitioner's own income, the respondent's income, and what "it may seem to the Court to be reasonable."[2] The Orissa High Court in Basant Kumar Behera v. Smt. Chandini Behera referred to an older general guideline where courts allowed maintenance pendente lite at one-fifth of the husband's net income, though it acknowledged that the HMA prescribes no such fixed limit.[9] The court stressed that litigation expenses should be reasonable.[9] The Allahabad High Court in Arun Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey stated that maintenance should be a "reasonable and a fair" amount for the woman to maintain herself "according to the mode of life to which she is accustomed to" or "according to the status to which she is entitled to," or the lifestyle of her husband, but not for a luxurious living or "extravagansa" and not beyond the husband's means.[3] The Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (a case concerning Section 25 HMA) noted that typically, maintenance should not exceed 25% of the husband's net salary, citing Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, and that changes in financial circumstances are relevant.[10] These general principles of assessing income and needs are pertinent to Section 24 as well.

Inclusion of Children's Maintenance

A significant question is whether maintenance under Section 24 can include support for children living with the applicant spouse. The Delhi High Court in A. Damodar v. Bimla Alias Parmila argued for a beneficial interpretation, suggesting that if a wife is admittedly not earning and has custody of a child, Section 24 should not be interpreted to exclude the child's needs, as the object is to avoid hardship.[11] The Kerala High Court in Praveen Menon v. Ajitha K. Pillai, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, held that a wife's claim for maintenance under Section 24 can include maintenance for her unmarried daughter living with her, especially since the husband has an obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).[12] The court reasoned that Section 24 cannot be read in isolation to mean maintenance for the wife alone.[12] The educational expenses of children are also a relevant component.[3]

Role of Affidavits of Disclosure

To ensure a fair and transparent determination of quantum, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha And Another mandated the filing of standardized Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including those under Section 24 HMA.[5] This directive aims to provide a clear financial picture to the court, preventing concealment of income or assets and facilitating a more accurate assessment of the maintenance amount.[5]

Procedural Dynamics and Enforcement

Interplay with Other Maintenance Statutes

An applicant may have remedies under various statutes, such as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), and HAMA, in addition to Section 24 HMA. The judiciary has consistently held that these remedies are often concurrent and not mutually exclusive. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ajjarapu Surya Sriramachandra Murthy v. Ajjarapu Tejo Satyasathimani And Others and Danda Chenchaiah v. Danda Mangamma And Another clarified that remedies under Section 24 HMA and Section 125 CrPC (formerly Section 488 CrPC) are not alternative but concurrent and optional.[13], [14] The pendency of proceedings under HMA does not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal court under Section 125 CrPC.[13], [14] This view was echoed in Sahera Alias Shru Gustadji Kadodwala v. Gustadji Ukadji Kadodwala[15] and Balasundaram v. Santhi.[16]

The Allahabad High Court in Ram Awadh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And Others held that a matrimonial court cannot refuse to entertain a Section 24 petition merely because an order under Section 125 CrPC is in existence, nor can it compel the applicant to seek enhancement under Section 127 CrPC instead.[17] However, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha And Another has laid down guidelines for adjustment of amounts awarded under different statutes to prevent multiple maintenance obligations and ensure equity.[5] Parties are required to disclose any previous maintenance proceedings and orders.[5]

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with an order under Section 24 can lead to serious consequences. The Calcutta High Court in Anita Karmokar & Anr. v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar held that a matrimonial suit could be stayed until the respondent fulfilled the maintenance obligations under Section 24, invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure justice.[18] This power to stay proceedings for non-payment was also acknowledged in principle in Shmt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar[2] and indicated in Paras Ram v. Janki Bai Alias Savitri.[19]

Continuance of Section 24 Applications

An important procedural aspect is whether an application under Section 24 survives if the main matrimonial petition is finally decided. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sohan Lal v. Smt. Kamlesh opined that such an application should continue and be decided, even if the main petition is disposed of.[4] Dismissing it on the ground that it does not survive would frustrate the purpose of the section, especially if the delay in deciding the Section 24 application was due to dilatory tactics of the other spouse or unforeseen circumstances.[4]

Appealability of Orders

Orders passed under Section 24 HMA are generally appealable under Section 28 of the HMA, which provides that all decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Orders made under Section 24 are specifically mentioned as appealable in Section 28 of HMA as interpreted in cases like Anita Karmokar.[18] The forum of appeal (District Court or High Court) may depend on factors such as the pecuniary valuation and the court that passed the order.[19] However, the Rajasthan High Court in HIMANSHU SARDANA v. SMT POOJA SARDANA, citing Mahesh Bhardwaj Vs. Smt.Smita Bhardwaj, observed that an appeal against an order under Section 24 passed by a Family Court is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.[20] This indicates potential complexities in appellate routes depending on the court of first instance.

Conclusion

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, stands as a vital provision upholding the principles of equity and fairness in matrimonial litigation. It ensures that a financially weaker spouse is not put to a disadvantage or forced into destitution while navigating the legal process. Judicial interpretations have broadened its scope to include maintenance for children in certain circumstances and have clarified its relationship with other maintenance laws. The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha have further streamlined the process, emphasizing transparency through financial disclosures and timely disposal. The power of courts to enforce Section 24 orders, including staying proceedings for non-compliance, underscores its mandatory nature. Ultimately, Section 24 plays an indispensable role in balancing the scales of justice, enabling both parties to effectively participate in matrimonial proceedings, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

References

  1. Arun Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey (Allahabad High Court, 2024)
  2. Shmt. Malkan Rani, v. Krishan Kumar, . (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1960)
  3. Arun Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey (Allahabad High Court, 2024) - *Same as [1], specific points referenced.*
  4. Sohan Lal v. Smt. Kamlesh . (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1984)
  5. Rajnesh v. Neha And Another (2021 SCC 2 324, Supreme Court Of India, 2020)
  6. T.P. Sudheesh Babu v. Sherly P. (2009 SCC ONLINE KER 4913, Kerala High Court, 2009)
  7. Rohini v. R. Durairaj (Madras High Court, 2005) - *Citing Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003) 10 S.C.C. 228*
  8. Shailja & Anr. (S) v. Khobbanna (S) (2017 SCC ONLINE SC 269, Supreme Court Of India, 2017)
  9. Basant Kumar Behera v. Smt. Chandini Behera (Orissa High Court, 2012)
  10. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017 SCC ONLINE SC 440, Supreme Court Of India, 2017) - *Citing Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129*
  11. A. Damodar v. Bimla Alias Parmila . (Delhi High Court, 1973)
  12. Praveen Menon v. Ajitha K. Pillai (2001 SCC ONLINE KER 416, Kerala High Court, 2001) - *Citing Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7*
  13. Ajjarapu Surya Sriramachandra Murthy v. Ajjarapu Tejo Satyasathimani And Others (1983 SCC ONLINE AP 147, Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1983)
  14. Danda Chenchaiah v. Danda Mangamma And Another (1967 SCC ONLINE AP 133, Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1967)
  15. Sahera Alias Shru Gustadji Kadodwala v. Gustadji Ukadji Kadodwala (Gujarat High Court, 1971)
  16. Balasundaram v. Santhi (Madras High Court, 1992)
  17. Ram Awadh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And Others (Allahabad High Court, 2019)
  18. Anita Karmokar & Anr. v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar Opposite Party. (1961 SCC ONLINE CAL 123, Calcutta High Court, 1961)
  19. Paras Ram v. Janki Bai Alias Savitri . (1961 SCC ONLINE ALL 13, Allahabad High Court, 1961)
  20. HIMANSHU SARDANA v. SMT POOJA SARDANA (Rajasthan High Court, 2017)

Other materials consulted for general context or points not directly forming the core of Section 24 analysis but mentioned in the provided list: Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar . (2010 SCC 4 339, Supreme Court Of India, 2010); Sm. Krishna Sarbadhikary v. Alok Ranjan Sarbadhikary . (1984 SCC ONLINE CAL 108, Calcutta High Court, 1984); Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey . (2002 SCC 2 73, Supreme Court Of India, 2002); Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh . (2017 SCC 4 85, Supreme Court Of India, 2017); Chand Dhawan (Smt) v. Jawaharlal Dhawan . (1993 SCC 3 406, Supreme Court Of India, 1993); Vilayat Raj Alias Vilayat Khan v. Smt. Sunila . (Delhi High Court, 1983); Jasbir Kaur v. Kuljit Singh . (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2008); Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma . (Supreme Court Of India, 2013); M. Vijayakumari And Another v. K. Devabalan And Others (Kerala High Court, 2003).