Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini has held that provisions contained in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is gender neutral.

What was the Background of Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini Case?

• The appellant (husband) was married to respondent on 19^th November 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
• The respondent (wife) returned back to her parental home on 7^th July 2020 owing to differences between the parties.
• Appellant preferred the divorce petition against the respondent before the Family Court wherein the impugned order has been passed under Section 24 of HMA, directing the appellant (husband) to pay ₹30,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent along with litigation expenses.
• Thereafter an appeal was moved by the appellant before the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the family court.
  • Modifying the order, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a spouse under the HMA is gender neutral.
• The Court further held that the equivalence does not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite (providing maintenance during the pendency of suit) and litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income.

What is Section 24 of HMA?

About:

• This Section deals with the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. It states that -

Where in any proceeding 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 proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding 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.

Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.

Case Laws:

• In Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977), the Delhi High Court held that the objective of Section 24 of HMA is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of the proceedings.
• In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997), the Supreme Court has held Section 24 of HMA cannot be given a restricted meaning. It was further held that the wife’s right to claim maintenance pendente lite would include her own maintenance and that of her unmarried daughter living with her.