The Jurisprudence of Pendente Lite Maintenance: A Critical Analysis of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Jurisprudence of Pendente Lite Maintenance: A Critical Analysis of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Introduction

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'HMA'), which provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, stands as a cornerstone of matrimonial law in India. Its primary objective is to provide interim financial relief to a spouse who lacks sufficient independent income to support themselves and bear the costs of litigation. This provision is designed to ensure that matrimonial proceedings are contested on a level playing field, preventing a financially superior party from gaining an unfair advantage over a dependent counterpart (Amutha Alias Symaladevi v. K.Thirumoorthy, 2009). The provision is conceived as a "stop-gap arrangement" to create a "fiction of equality" during the pendency of proceedings (Arun Pandey v. Smt. Neha Pandey, 2024). Over the decades, the interpretation and application of Section 24 have evolved significantly through judicial pronouncements, transforming it from a simple discretionary power to a structured, evidence-based right. This article critically analyzes the jurisprudence surrounding Section 24, examining its core principles, the determination of quantum, the pivotal role of financial disclosure, and the procedural framework established by the Supreme Court of India to ensure its effective implementation.

The Object and Scope of Section 24

Section 24 of the HMA empowers a court, during any proceeding under the Act, to order one party to pay to the other the expenses of the proceeding and a reasonable monthly sum for their maintenance. The provision is notably gender-neutral, allowing either the husband or the wife to claim relief, provided they can establish that they have "no independent income sufficient for her or his support" (SRI N GIRISH v. SMT M KUSUMA, 2023). The core statutory consideration is the applicant's inability to sustain themselves, and the court cannot impose extraneous conditions that might defeat the very purpose of the grant (Smt. Janki Bai v. Prem Narayan Kushwaha, 2005).

The judiciary has consistently held that the terms "maintenance" and "support" under Section 24 are not to be construed as mere sustenance. The objective is to ensure that the applicant spouse can live with dignity and maintain a standard of living commensurate with the status they enjoyed during the marriage (Dev Dutt Singh v. Smt. Rajni Gandhi, 1983; Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Ratna Sharma, 2009). This includes providing for the "necessaries and the conveniences of life," which are determined based on the standing and wealth of the parties. Furthermore, the scope of maintenance under this section extends to providing for dependent children living with the applicant spouse, as their needs are intrinsically linked to the applicant's financial requirements (Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, 1997; Akshaya Kumar Joshi v. Asha Rani, 1993).

The Principle of 'Sufficient Independent Income': Earning Capacity v. Actual Income

A significant area of judicial scrutiny under Section 24 revolves around the interpretation of "no independent income sufficient for her or his support." This has led to a nuanced debate on whether a spouse with the potential or capacity to earn is entitled to maintenance. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000) articulated a crucial principle: a well-qualified spouse who is capable of earning but chooses to remain unemployed may not be entitled to maintenance. The court expressed concern over the potential misuse of maintenance provisions to impose financial burdens without just cause, emphasizing that possessing qualifications implies the capability to secure employment. This view seeks to prevent the fostering of dependency and discourage frivolous claims by financially capable spouses.

However, this principle is applied with caution. Courts must balance the applicant's earning capacity against the socio-economic realities, particularly where a wife may have sacrificed her career for marital obligations. The mere fact that a wife is educated and capable of earning does not automatically disentitle her from claiming maintenance. The court must assess whether she has a genuine inability to support herself in the context of the circumstances leading to the litigation.

Conversely, while Section 24 is gender-neutral, claims for maintenance by a husband are scrutinized with greater rigour. In SRI N GIRISH v. SMT M KUSUMA (2023), the Karnataka High Court observed that a husband's application for maintenance, filed as a counter to the wife's claim, requires compelling evidence of his inability to earn and can be viewed as a tactic to frustrate the wife's rightful claim.

Determining the Quantum of Maintenance: A Multifaceted Assessment

The determination of the quantum of maintenance is a discretionary exercise, and as cautioned in Dev Dutt Singh (1983), there is no fixed formula; each case must be decided on its particular facts. However, the judiciary has developed a set of guiding principles to ensure that the awarded amount is "reasonable and realistic" (R. SMITHA SUBRAMANYACHAR v. SRI MANJUNATH S K, 2024). The key factors include:

  • The status, lifestyle, and social standing of the parties during the marriage.
  • The income, assets, and financial capacity of the non-applicant spouse.
  • The reasonable needs of the applicant spouse and any dependent children.
  • The liabilities and financial obligations of both parties.

In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), a case concerning permanent alimony under Section 25, the Supreme Court referenced the benchmark that maintenance should not typically exceed 25% of the husband's net salary, a principle established in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970). While this serves as a useful guideline, it is not an inflexible rule and is subject to the specific facts of each case, including any change in circumstances such as the payer's remarriage or increase in income.

The Imperative of Full and Frank Financial Disclosure

The most significant challenge in determining quantum has been the tendency of parties to conceal their true income and assets. Recognizing this systemic issue, the Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2015) took a pioneering step by mandating the filing of a detailed and comprehensive affidavit of assets, income, and expenditure by both parties at the outset of the proceedings. The court reasoned that this was essential to prevent delays, ensure transparency, and enable a just adjudication within the statutory 60-day period.

This procedural innovation was elevated to a national mandate by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha And Another (2021). The Court directed all family courts to require the filing of a standardized Affidavit of Disclosure in all maintenance proceedings. This directive ensures that the court has a clear financial picture of both parties, thereby facilitating a fair assessment of the maintenance amount. Crucially, where a party fails to make a complete and honest disclosure, courts are empowered to draw an adverse inference against them (Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, 1997).

Procedural Harmonization and Enforcement: The Rajnesh v. Neha Framework

The judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) is a watershed moment in the law of maintenance in India. It addressed several long-standing procedural ambiguities and conflicts to create a uniform and streamlined system. The key directives are:

  1. Overlapping Jurisdictions: The Court acknowledged that a claimant can seek maintenance under various statutes, including Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the HMA. To prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting orders, it was held that while a party can pursue remedies under different laws, they must disclose any previous maintenance orders. The court adjudicating a subsequent application must consider and adjust the amount awarded in the prior proceeding to prevent duplication of payments (Chandra Mohan Das v. Tapati Das, 2015).
  2. Date of Award: The Court settled the conflicting judicial opinions on the effective date of the maintenance order. It ruled that maintenance pendente lite must be awarded from the date of filing the application, not the date of the order. This ensures that the respondent cannot benefit from protracting the litigation.
  3. Enforcement of Orders: Recognizing that the mere passing of an order is insufficient without effective enforcement, the Court provided robust mechanisms to address non-compliance. An order of maintenance can be enforced like a decree of a civil court, and arrears can be recovered through measures such as attachment of property or salary.

Cessation of the Right to Maintenance

The right to claim maintenance under Section 24 is fundamentally linked to the subsistence of the marital relationship during the pendency of the main proceeding. An interesting and logical limitation to this right was clarified in Malkiat Singh v. Smt. Darshan Kaur (2002). The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once a decree of divorce has been passed and the wife has remarried, the relationship of husband and wife ceases to exist. A final decree of a matrimonial court confers or takes away a legal character and is a judgment in rem under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, even if an application to set aside an ex-parte divorce decree is pending, the wife who has already remarried cannot claim maintenance under Section 24, as the foundational marital status for such a claim is no longer present.

Conclusion

The jurisprudence governing Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has undergone a profound transformation. From a provision granting discretionary relief, it has evolved into a structured mechanism for ensuring economic justice and procedural fairness in matrimonial disputes. The judicial journey, culminating in the comprehensive guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, reflects a deep commitment to the principles of equity and dignity. The mandatory disclosure of assets has armed the courts with the tools to pierce the veil of financial concealment, while the harmonization of procedures has brought much-needed clarity and consistency. The law now robustly balances the right of a dependent spouse to adequate support against the need to prevent the misuse of legal provisions. By ensuring that financial disparity does not impede access to justice, the evolved jurisprudence of Section 24 reinforces the integrity of the matrimonial legal system in India.