Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of A v. B has held that a major son shall be entitled for maintenance till the time he completes his education and becomes financially independent. 

What was the Background of the A v. B Case?  

• In this case the parties got married under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and have a son. 
• The parties started living separately since the year 2004 the son lived with the mother. 
• The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA on the grounds of cruelty before the Family Court. 
• During the pendency of Divorce petition wife filed an application under Section 24 of HMA for pendente lite maintenance for which Family Court ordered the Husband to pay the maintenance of Rs. 18000/- (wife & son). 
• The wife appealed the maintenance order for the enhancement of Rs. 20000/-. 
• The wife again filed an application before the Family Court on 28th February 2009 for enhancement of the interim maintenance to Rs. 1,45,000/- due to substantial changes. 
• On 14th July 2016, the Husband withdrew his divorce petition.  
• On 17th July 2015 during the pendency of the maintenance petition Husband filed before the Family Court an application where 
  • He voluntarily admitted to enhance the amount of maintenance to Rs. 65000/- (Rs. 50,000 to the Wife from the date of filing of enhancement application i.e. 28th February 2009 and Rs 15,000 to the son from July 2015). 
  • He further pleaded that as he has withdrawn the divorce petition the court cannot give maintenance under Section 24 & Section 26 of the HMA and the court has become functus officio. 
  • He also contended that under Section 26 no maintenance can be granted to the adult male child. 
• The Family Court ordered that  
  • Wife and son would be entitled to receive the interim maintenance from 28th February 2009 to 14th July 2016 of Rs. 1,15,000/-. 
  • The son would be entitled for maintenance from 15th July 2016 till he attains the age of 26 years and would be entitled for enhancements at regular intervals of 2 years starting from 28th May 2019. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Family Court both the parties appealed before the Delhi High court.  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court observed that the withdrawal of divorce petition does not curtail the right of wife to be maintained under Section 24 of HMA. Such a decision would cause hardship to the wife. 
• Therefore, the Delhi High Court held that the Family court is competent to adjudicate the maintenance application even after withdrawal of the divorce petition by the husband. 
• The Delhi High Court further observed that as per Section 26 of the HMA the Family Court does not become functus officio if the Husband withdraws the divorce petition. 
• The Delhi High Court interpretated the context of Section 26 of HMA that the purpose of the provision of Section 26 is to ensure education of the child and it is unfeasible to sat that a child can completes his education at attaining majority and be able to maintain himself. 
• The scope of education interpreted as per Section 26 of HMA cannot be restricted till the age a child attains majority. 
• Therefore, the Delhi High Court held that a major son shall be entitled for the maintenance till he completes his education and becomes financially independent. 

What is Maintenance? 

About: 

• It is financial support aided by the father or the husband towards his children or wife respectively. 
• The maintenance is also known as alimony, which refers to the payment against the expenses and all the necessities of the dependents. 
• The maintenance shall be granted irrespective of the parties living together or not and irrespective if the divorce has been granted or not as per Hindu Laws. 

Maintenance Provisions Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 

• Section 24: Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings 
  • This provision 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. 
• Section 26: Custody of children 
  • This provision states that in any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made. 
  • Provided that the application with respect to the maintenance and education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent.

Difference Between Section 24 of HMA & Section 25 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): 

Case Laws: 

• Urvashi Aggarwal and Others v. Inderpaul Aggarwal (2021): In this case the court observed that a father cannot be absolved of his responsibilities to meet the education expenses of his son because the son has attained majority. Even though the child may be a major, he may not be financially independent and capable of sustaining himself. 
• Sapna Paul v. Rohin Paul (2024): In this case the court held that the obligation of a father towards his child does not end when the child attains majority, even though he is still pursuing his studies. 
• Rajnesh v. Neha (2021): In this case, the court stated that the maintenance amount should consider the child’s food, clothing, residence, extra coaching or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education.