Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (HMA) no maintenance can be granted to a highly qualified and earning wife and is inclined to truthfully disclose her true income.

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the matter of X v. Y.

Background

• The appellant (wife) had got married to the respondent (husband), but on account of incompatibility and differences, they were not able to continue in their matrimonial relationship leading to the filing of a Divorce Petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of HMA by the respondent/husband.
• The appellant was working till then, but after the filing of the Divorce Petition she resigned from her job.
• The matter was amicably settled, and the Divorce Petition was withdrawn.
• However, a police complaint was filed by the appellant thereby reflecting that the parties were unable to settle in their matrimonial relationship.
• The Respondent filed the second Divorce Petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of HMA against the appellant.
• During the trial the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of HMA which was dismissed by the Trial Court, twice.
  • It was first dismissed during trial and then re-adjudication by Family Court.
• Aggrieved from the dismissal the appellant preferred this appeal before the Delhi HC.

Court’s Observation

• The Delhi HC held “We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance”.

Maintenance Under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA)

• Section 24 of the HMA deals with the provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
  • The term "pendente lite" means “pending the litigation” or “during the pendency of the case”.
• The said section governs interim maintenance to support livelihood and necessary expenses of any proceeding under HMA in case of insufficient or no independent income.
• The provision provides a gender-neutral right to apply this remedy to both husbands and wives, as the case may be.
• The Court may order on an application of the wife or husband, the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding or expenses necessary for his/her survival, monthly.
• The court may order the maintenance under this Section only after adjudging petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent and finding the application reasonable.
• The proviso of this Section states 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.

Fundamentals of the Section 24

• Expenses of Proceedings:
  • Section 24 governs the expenses occurring during the pendency of the proceedings under HMA.
  • These expenses include the fees of lawyers, court fees, stamp duties, traveling expenses and other related expenditures.
  • The objective is to ensure that the financially weaker spouse can effectively participate in the legal process without being burdened by the associated costs.
• Discretion of the Court:
  • The power to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings is merely a discretionary power vested in the Court.
  • This discretion allows the court to consider the individual circumstances of the case and make a fair and just determination regarding the amount of maintenance and expenses to be awarded.
  • The court adjudges the sufficiency of income, assets, and needs of both parties while granting the maintenance under this Section.
• Temporary Nature:
  • It is important to note that the maintenance awarded under Section 24 is temporary in nature.
  • It is intended to provide financial support only during the pendency of the legal proceedings.
  • The Court has the discretion to decide on granting final maintenance while concluding the case.

Landmark Cases

• Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000):
  • The HC while declining maintenance to a highly qualified wife held that Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to either spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts.
    • However, the law does not expect persons engaged in the legal battles to remain idle solely with the objective of squeezing out money from the opposite party.
  • The court further said that “Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse”.
• Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta (2016):
  • The division bench of Delhi HC deprecated the claim of maintenance under Section 24 of HMA by a well-qualified spouse having an earning capacity.