Delhi HC: The object of Section 24 of HMA is to avoid vagrancy but it is not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband

 It is settled that object of Section 24 of HMA is to avoid vagrancy but it is not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed in K.N. v. {Para 16}

“12. 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 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

  MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022

 MEENAKSHI BATRA  Vs  VIJAY KUMAR BATRA 

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

Dated: 08.10.2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether wife is entitled to get maintenance if her expenses are more than her recurring income?

The appellant has relied upon her monthly expenditure, which according to her affidavit is approximately Rs. 1,16,150/-, apart from litigation expenses. The mere assertion of an expenditure figure, however, cannot be treated as conclusive. Section 24 requires the Court to determine the reasonable needs of the applicant. The assessment necessarily has to take into account the age of the parties, their present circumstances, their established standard of living, their medical requirements, residential expenses and other genuine necessities. {Para 21}

22. The fact that a particular expenditure has been disclosed in an affidavit does not make the expenditure, by itself, an expenditure which the other spouse is statutorily liable to fund. The Court has to distinguish between expenses which are necessary for reasonable support and expenses which represent discretionary expenditure or a manner of deployment of one's resources which cannot automatically be fastened upon the other spouse.

 The fact that the appellant’s disclosed expenditure exceeds her recurring income cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that she is entitled to maintenance under Section 24. The expenditure claimed must first be assessed for reasonableness.Section 24 is intended to secure reasonable support and the necessary expenses of litigation; it does not contemplate reimbursement of every item of expenditure disclosed by the claimant irrespective of its nature or necessity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

  MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022

 MEENAKSHI BATRA  Vs  VIJAY KUMAR BATRA 

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

Dated: 08.10.2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Retirement corpus can't be treated as monthly income for maintenance, Delhi High Court clarifies in matrimonial dispute

 In considering these assets, a distinction has to be made between the retirement corpus and the income generated from that corpus. The retirement corpus is accumulated capital. It cannot, merely because it is substantial, be treated as if it were a monthly income. A retired person cannot be expected to consume his or her retirement savings merely for the reason that such savings exist. At the same time, where the retirement savings are invested and generate interest or other returns, such recurring returns are income and have to be considered. The question before the Court is, therefore, not whether the appellant has a substantial retirement corpus, but whether she has sufficient recurring income and financial resources to meet her reasonable needs. {Para 18}

19. The Family Court, while considering the appellant’s financial position, placed considerable reliance upon her retiral benefits and investments. To that extent, the approach requires some clarification. The entire retiral corpus cannot be treated as recurring monthly income. What can be taken into account as income is the interest or other return actually generated from those investments.

20. However, the existence of a retirement corpus is not completely irrelevant. It forms part of the overall financial circumstances of the appellant. The Court is entitled to consider the financial resources available to her while deciding whether she is in a position to support herself. What the Court cannot do is to treat the corpus itself as though it were a recurring salary.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

  MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022

 MEENAKSHI BATRA  Vs  VIJAY KUMAR BATRA 

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

Dated: 08.10.2026

Print Page