Whether husband can refuse to pay maintenance to wife if she is residing in matrimonial house?

The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child. Thus, considering the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and minor son are parameters to be considered while determining the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the quantum of interim maintenance to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself and the minor son in reasonable comfort.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 11007 OF 2023

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi, Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi,

CORAM : DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 4th January 2024.

Print Page

Whether husband is entitled to get maintenance from wife if he has lost job due to Covid 19 pandemic?

 It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an able

bodied man and does not suffer from any disability or infirmity.

That being the case, if maintenance is awarded to the husband

as is claimed from the hands of the wife, merely because

Section 24 of the Act is gender neutral for grant of

maintenance, it would be promoting idleness notwithstanding

the fact that the husband has no impediment or handicap to

earn. Merely because he has lost his job on the onset of Covid-

19, it cannot be held that he is incapable of earning.

Therefore, it can be irrefutably concluded that the husband by

his own conduct has decided to lead a leisurely life by seeking

maintenance from the hands of the wife. In the considered

view of this Court, such an application cannot be granted, as

the husband cannot afford to incapacitate himself and sustain

an application under Section 24 of the Act to claim maintenance

from the hands of the husband. This would be an anathema to

the spirit of Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the husband

cannot seek any maintenance unless he would demonstrate

such disability either physical or mental which incapacitates him

from earning money by finding a job for himself. It is in fact

the duty of an able bodied husband to maintain himself, the

wife and the child, if any. {Para 12}

13. The aforesaid view of mine, in this regard, is fortified

by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of

ANJU GARG AND ANOTHER v. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG –

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, wherein it is held as follows:

 The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of

law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to

provide financial support to the wife and to the

minor children. The husband is required to earn

money even by physical labour, if he is an ablebodied,

and could not avoid his obligation, except

on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in

the statute. 

The Apex Court holds that, if the husband is an able

bodied man, he cannot project the plea that, he has no means

to pay. It is necessary for any husband to earn by legitimate

means and maintain the wife and, the children, if any.

14. Therefore, I do not find any warrant of interference

with the order passed by the concerned Court directing

maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife and

rejection of the claim of the petitioner/husband that he is in

need of maintenance from the hands of the wife. The

petitioner/husband must remember that ‘it is better to wear

out; than rust out’.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO. 24226 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

SRI. N. GIRISH S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY Vs SMT. M. KUSUMA.

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

DATED:  10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

Print Page

Whether the wife gainfully employed and earning equivalent to her husband can claim maintenance U/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?

The question arising for consideration in this case is whether the spouse who is gainfully employed and earning equivalent to his/her spouse, can claim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 just because he/she prefers to resign without bringing on record any justification for that act.

 The case of the appellant/wife before us is squarely covered by the decision dated March 24, 2000 of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as 2000(3) MPLJ 100 Smt.Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal wherein the question as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be incorporated was answered as under:

'In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted: Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implanting the provisions of law suitable to their purpose.

11. The appellant/wife before us being highly qualified and experienced in her field, has rightly been denied the benefit of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as she has not satisfied the criteria laid therein.

 Delhi High Court

Nisha Jain vs Amit Jain on 24 August, 2016

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 106/2015  
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

Print Page

Important Judgments on maintenance U/S 125 CRPC, S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and DV Act

1)When second wife is entitled to get maintenance? 

https://www.lawweb.in/2013/12/husband-can-not-refuse-to-pay.html?m=0

2)Leading Supreme Court Judgment on grant of permanent alimony

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/07/leading-supreme-court-judgment-on-grant.html?m=0

3) When husband can claim maintenance from wife?

https://www.lawweb.in/2017/05/when-husband-can-claim-maintenance-from.html

4) Supreme Court: Amount awarded u/ S 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against amount awarded in matrimonial proceedings

https://www.lawweb.in/2014/04/amount-awarded-u-s-125-of-crpc-for.html

Print Page

Whether wife can claim interim maintenance so that her income becomes equal with income of husband?

There is no doubt that the appellant has been working with reputed multinational companies. Her own income affidavit reveals that her net income is approximately Rs. 1 Lac per month. There is no child from the wedlock and she has no other liabilities. Looking at the totality of the facts, we find that this is not the case where the appellant is unable to maintain herself. In fact, the earnings of the appellant are sufficient to maintain herself and give her the required comforts of life. The law on the subject as discernible from some of the judgments mentioned above is clear that when a spouse is qualified and has the capacity to earn, normally, interim maintenance is not to be granted. In a given situation, the courts have been granting some maintenance in a case where there is capacity to earn but some other factors prevent the spouse from earning despite making best efforts. However, in a case like the present, where the spouse is qualified and is actually earning, interim maintenance under Section 24 need not be granted. We do not agree with the submission of the appellant that though she is earning a good amount of salary, she should still be given interim maintenance to bring her at par with the lifestyle of the respondent. The provisions of this section are not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband but are only to see that when divorce or other matrimonial proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the maintenance is then granted to tie over the litigation expenses and to provide a comfortable life to the spouse. Where, however, both the spouses are earning and have a good salary, merely because there is some salary difference cannot be a reason for seeking maintenance. In the present case, what the appellant seeks is an equalization with the respondent which we are afraid cannot be granted under Section 24.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before G.S Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ.)

K.N .  v.    R.G .

MAT. APP(F.C) 93/2018 and CM APPL 18317/2018

Decided on February 12, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704

MAT. APP(F.C) 93/2018

Print Page

Whether order for interim maintenance can be executed within twelve years from date of order?

It is fallacious to appreciate that the order or decree passed by the Court under the Hindu Marriage Act as well as by the Family Court, would be enforced under the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. There is specific provision under Article 136 of the Part I of the Third Division of Schedule of Limitation Act for period of limitation to execute the decree or order of the Civil Court. It would be reiterated that the decree or order under Hindu Marriage Act as well as passed by the Family Court all are having same force and effect as a decree or order of the Civil Court and liable to be executed in the same mode and manner as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of decree or order of the Civil Court. The provision of Article 137 is applicable to the proceedings of "any other application" for which no period of limitation is given elsewhere in the Third Division to the Schedule. As referred above, when the specific period of 12 years is prescribed for execution of decree/order of Civil Court, the same provision of 12 years period of limitation is essential to be made applicable to the decree/order by the Family Court or by any Court under Hindu Marriage Act. The procedure meant for execution of decree/order of Civil Court is required to be adopted for execution of decree/order of Family Court or any Court under Hindu Marriage Act. Both the procedures for execution are to be considered analogous with each other. Therefore, when there is a limitation period provided under Article 136 for execution of decree/order of the Civil Court, the decree/order of Family Court under Hindu Marriage Act are permitted to be executed within 12 years period with same force and effect as well as with the same mode and manner prescribed for execution of decree/order of Civil Court. In the result, the procedure would be governed by Article 136 and not by the provision of Article 137 of Limitation Act. The Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa in the case of V. Krishnaveni Vs. V. Narasingha Rao, MANU/OR/0174/1984 : 1984 Law Suit (Ori.) 148 also held that the order under Section 24 of the Act is enforceable within a period of 12 years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 11581 of 2017

Decided On: 07.08.2018

Parag Subhash Parelkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.K. Sonawane, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 504,AIR2019 Bom 9

Print Page

Whether maintenance granted U/S 125 of CRPC will be superseded if maintenance is granted U/S 24 of Hindu marriage Act?

Second, consequent upon passing of the maintenance order dated 15.07.2016 Under Section 24 of the Act by the Family Court, the order passed by the Family Court, Samastipur Under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands superseded and now no longer holds the field. Indeed, this fact was conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent (wife).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3658 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6301 of 2017)

Decided On: 09.04.2018

 Sanjay Kumar Sinha  Vs. Asha Kumari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation:     (2018) 5 SCC 333  

Print Page

Whether wife can be denied interim maintenance U/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act if she has converted herself from Hinduism to other religion?

We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. In an application filed either by the husband or wife under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, the financial status of the parties and his or her capability to maintain himself or herself as the case may be during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings alone is required to be considered. At this stage, what is required to be decided is the resourcefulness or otherwise of the applicant to maintain himself or herself during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. For this purpose, the Courts are not required to take note of the conversion of either the husband or wife to any other religion as contemplated under Section 18(2)(f) of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or it will be a ground to deny interim maintenance sought for in an application under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act. In other words, Section 18(2)(f) The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has no application for considering the claim of the husband or wife as the case may be for interim maintenance under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1409 of 2017

Decided On: 06.07.2017

 K. Gurusamy Vs.  G. Malliga

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Subbiah and A.D. Jagadish Chandira, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 Madras 286

Print Page

What factors are to be considered for grant of interim maintenance U/S 24 of Hindu marriage Act?

 Where the parties do not come forward with exact income they have,
the Court would have no alternative but to apply its guess-work. In the
decision reported as 140 (2007) DLT 16 Sh.Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt.Saroj
Hegde it was held that under noted eleven factors have to be taken into
account: -
1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life
style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical
attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income
of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are
not disclosed.
10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the
amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Date of Decision: August 08, 2016
 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 35/2015
SUJIT KUMAR 
versus
VANDANA 
CORAM:
 MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
 MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

Print Page

Whether fact that husband has retired can be considered by court while granting interim maintenance?

After hearing rival submissions of both parties in
connection with C.O. 2948 of 2015 and C.O. 2614 of 2015 I am
of the view that while awarding pendente lite alimony, Court
should take into the account the income as it stood on the date of
hearing of the application. Admittedly, the application was
pending for about 10 years before the Court below. When the
application was made at that time the husband was in service
and had been earning a considerable amount but after retirement
his income is reduced to a great extent. It is also on record, that
in the meantime he had purchased a flat measuring about 750
square ft. wherein the wife and their son have been residing. The
son is well educated and earns a fat salary. The wife O.P. had
contended that the husband had landed properties at Fulia,
which yields him about Rs.1,50,000/- per month but that part of
her submission has not been substantiated by any document.
Even the description of landed property was not there. Therefore,it cannot be said that the husband has some earning from the
landed property also.
 At the same time, the wife deserves a moderate standard
of living because she is the wife of an Ex-Chief Engineer of
Doordarshan when he had been residing with her husband, her
standard of living was obviously much higher and she was
accustomed with that. Naturally, she deserves that standard of
living. Due to retirement of her husband, she is also supposed to
sacrifice her standard of living to some extent because she has
been provided with a flat which has not been denied.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CULCUTTA
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
C.O. No. 2948 of 2015
With
C.O. No. 2614 of 2015
Sri Gurubar Biswas V Smt. Krishna Biswas
Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay

Judgment Delivered On : 10.03.2016.
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC)513 Cal

Print Page

Important factors to be considered for grant of interim maintenance U/S 24 of Hindu marriage Act

Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can Page 1521 be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are:

1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

3. The independent income and property of the claimant.

4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.

5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.

9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded Under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded Under Section 24 of the Act.

Delhi High Court

Sh. Bharat Hegde vs Smt. Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007

Equivalent citations: 140 (2007) DLT 16, I (2007) DMC 815

Bench: P Nandrajog

Print Page

Whether court can strike off defence If interim maintenance granted U/S 24 of Hindu marriage Act is not paid?

Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to award maintenance pendente lite and also litigation expenses to a needy and indigent spouse so that the proceedings can be conducted without any hardship on his or her part. The proceedings under this Section are summary in nature and confers a substantial right on the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. Where this amount is not paid to the applicant, then the very object and purpose of this provision stands defeated. No doubt, remedy of execution of decree or order passed by the matrimonial court is available under Section 28A of the Act, but the same would not be a bar to striking off the defence of the spouse who violates the interim order of maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the said Court. In other words, the striking off the defence of the spouse not honouring the court's interim order is the instant relief to the needy one instead of waiting endlessly till its execution under Section 28A of the Act. Where the spouse who is to pay maintenance fails to discharge the liability, the other spouse cannot be forced to adopt time consuming execution proceedings for realising the amount. Court cannot be a mute spectator watching flagrant  disobedience of the interim orders passed by it showing its helplessness in its instant implementation. It would, thus, be appropriate even in the absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, to strike off the defence of the erring spouse in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Act rather than to leave the aggrieved party to seek its enforcement through execution as execution is a long and arduous procedure. Needless to say, the remedy under Section 28A of the Act regarding execution of decree or interim order does not stand obliterated or extinguished by striking off the defence of the defaulting spouse. Thus, where the spouse who is directed to pay the maintenance and litigation expenses, the legal consequences for its non-payment are that the defence of the said spouse is liable to be struck off.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagtar Singh vs Veerpal Kaur on 12 January, 2015

Citation; AIR 2015 (NOC)906 P&H

Print Page

Supreme Court: Amount awarded u/ S 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against amount awarded in matrimonial proceedings

Since the husband failed to pay the amount of maintenance as aforesaid, the wife started recovery proceedings. The husband contended that the maintenance amounts should be adjusted against the interim alimony and the Magistrate before whom the recovery proceedings were pending upheld the contention. The High Court, in the order which is under appeal, held that the Magistrate was in error in directing adjustment of the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6.We are of the view that the High Court was in error. The amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same. 

Supreme Court of India

Sudeep Chaudhary vs Radha Chaudhary on 31 January, 1997

Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SC 536, 1999 CriLJ 466, JT 1998 (9) SC 473

Author: S Bharucha

Bench: S Bharucha, F Uddin

Print Page

Whether wife can make application U/S 24 of H M Act even if she is granted maintenance U/S125 of CRPC?

Family - Applicability of Procedure - Maintenance - Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Whether a pre-existing order for payment of maintenance granted under Section 125 of CrPC is a bar for maintaining an application under Section 24 of Act? - Held, proceeding for divorce was pending before Civil Court and without filing an application for interim maintenance petitioner approached Magistrate invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate has to set aside Order granting maintenance and therefore proper course should be to approach Civil Court itself where proceeding was pending - Judgment is not an authority for proposition that a pre-existing Order for maintenance dis-entitles a party to file an application under Section 24 of Act - Trial Judge has committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing application filed by petitioner under Section 24 of Act on ground of a pre-existing order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Impugned order is liable to be set aside - Matter is remitted to Trial Judge for fresh consideration on merits and as per law - Civil revision petition allowed accordingly


Madras High Court

Amutha @ Symaladev
i : vs K.Thirumoorthy @ Thirumalaisamy ... on 25 August, 2009

DATED: 25.08.2009
CORAM:
 MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
Citation: 2009-5-LW97, 2009-2-LW(Crl)1186,AIR2010(NOC)336 MADRAS

Print Page

Whether court should permit husband to withdraw restoration of his divorce petition if application of wife for interim maintenance is pending?

 In view of the above, my answers to the two questions framed in Para 3 above are as under :--

(i) Pending an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for restoration of the petition filed by the husband for divorce, the wife can initiate proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955, for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings;

(ii). The husband cannot be allowed to withdraw his application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to defeat the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Bombay High Court

Vinod Kimar Kejriwal vs Usha Vinod Kejriwal on 20 March, 1992

Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 Bom 160, 1992 (2) BomCR 648, I (1993) DMC 32

Bench: A Savanat

Print Page

Whether Application for maintenance pendente lite during pendency of application U/Order 9, Rule 4, CPC is maintainable?

a) The case examined the meaning of the expression 'proceedings under the Act' in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - It was held that the expression could not be given narrow and restricted meaning under the Act - It was further held that the application for maintenance pendente lite during pendency of application under Order 9, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code was maintainable.

b) The case examined an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for restoration of petition filed by the husband - The wife started proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - It was held that the Court could not allow husband to withdraw his application for restoration so as to adversely affect the wife's remedy under Section 24

c) The case examined the proceedings for maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the same under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - It was held that the provision under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not inconsistent with the provision of the Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Bombay High Court

Vinod Kimar Kejriwal vs Usha Vinod Kejriwal on 20 March, 1992

Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 Bom 160, 1992 (2) BomCR 648, I (1993) DMC 32

Bench: A Savant

Print Page

Whether Wife can seek injunction to restrain husband from performing second marriage?

Family - injunction - Section 24of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - appeal by wife against decree of divorce - appellant wife prayed for restraining respondent husband from marrying during pendency of present appeal - respondent husband contended that if appellant wife succeed in present appeal then second marriage by him would be void and it would not have any effect on status of appellant and injunction in favour of appellant should not be granted - Court observed that if wife does not succeed in present appeal then status of second marriage by respondent husband would go unhindered but if she succeed then she is bound to face mental agony and status of second wife would also be in controversy - therefore balance of convenience in favour of injunction and thus injunction against husband granted.

Calcutta High Court

Chitra Sengupta vs Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta on 3 April, 1987Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Cal 98, 92 CWN 54
Bench: A Bhattacharjee, A K Nayak

Print Page

Whether Interim maintenance can be granted to child u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?

 This question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (AIR 1997 SC 3397). Factually, in the said case, a Hindu wife was awarded maintenance pendente lite of Rs.2,500/- per month under Section 24 of the Act and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses by the trial court. The same was reduced by the High Court to Rs.1,500/- per month. Challenging the same, the wife took up the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was contended that she had an unmarried daughter who was also under her care and custody. Her grievance was that the Court below did not take into account the fact that she had to maintain the unmarried daughter. It was opposed by the husband on the ground that a petition under Section 24 of the Act cannot be over stretched to order for maintenance pendente lite in favour of the child. The further argument was that such maintenance for the child can be claimed only under Section 26 of the Act. On considering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the question in paragraph No.6 as follows:- ..............Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing the maintenance pendente lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that section operates in its own field. 1

Madras High Court

S.Sumathi vs R.Sharavanakumar on 30 April, 2013

CORAM

MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

Print Page

Whether court should direct Wife to resort to execution of order of interim maintenance?

 The remedy of execution is not an easy remedy. The execution does not at all provide short cuts to the destination. The difficulties of a successful litigant begin when he succeeds to obtain an order in his favour. Driving out a penniless wife to initiate a separate execution proceedings for the purpose of recovery of arrears of interim alimony and expenses of the proceedings frustrates the very purpose and spirit of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The approach adopted by the learned Matrimonial Court makes the very purpose of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act redundant and nugatory.

The learned Matrimonial Court, it appears, laboured under wrong impression that he lacks jurisdiction in the matter of enforcement of the order in the nature of interim alimony. He has completely forgotten the very purpose of section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. A Court can, in exercise of its powers under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, pass an order of staying the petition of divorce if it is found that the husband deliberately and contumaciously flouts the order of the Court. There is a power in the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent any abuse of process of the Court. The Matrimonial Court, therefore, was under duty to invoke the inherent powers under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and should have compelled the erring husband to deposit whole of the arrears of interim alimony and the expenses of the proceedings in the Court within certain point of time. If in spite of passing of such orders, the party under liability flouts the order deliberately, the Court can stay the petition or the proceedings of divorce if the erring party is a petitioner. Similarly, if the erring party is the respondent, the Court can strike off the defence of such a party if it is found that the respondent is deliberately flouting the orders of the Court.

Bombay High Court

Vanmala Maroti Hatkar vs Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar on 13 April, 1999

Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 Bom 388, 2000 (1) BomCR 114, II (1999) DMC 521

Bench: B Vagyani

Print Page

When wife is liable to pay maintenance to husband U/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?

The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide 

support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and 

is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the 

term „support‟ is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to 

mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no 

independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance 

so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their 

matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or 

the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his 

support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided 

with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses. 

Delhi High Court

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

Print Page