Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
We'd like to show you notifications for the latest
news and updates.
Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Cancel Allow
› ›
Merely because wife is earning, does not
automatically operate as absolute bar for
awarding maintenance: Delhi High Court
“Maintenance pendente lite/permanent alimony u/s 24 or 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 may be claimed by either wife or husband. The phrase
“su�cient for her or his support” has to be interpreted to mean that applicant is
able to maintain with reasonable comfort and standard of living which applicant
was accustomed in matrimonial home.”
Published on December 7, 2023 - By Simranjeet
Advertisement
1 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
We'd like to show you notifications for the latest
news and updates.
Cancel Allow
Post
In an appeal �led under Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (‘the Act’) against the Family Court order dated 06-04-2023 whereby pendente lite maintenance of the appellant-wife was
declined and respondent-husband was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month for maintenance of the minor child, the Division
Bench of V. Kameswar Rao and , JJ., modi�ed the impugned order and opined that the wife was
entitled to maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month apart from the maintenance amount of child, i.e., Rs. 20,000.
In the instant case, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02-09-2000 and a girl child was born from the wedlock
on 10-12-2010. The wife alleged that the husband treated her with cruelty, deserted her, and constrained her to live
separately since December 2013 and thus, she �led a petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(ia) and (ib) of the
Act. The wife also �led an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs. 75,000 per month for
herself and her minor daughter. The husband agreed to give divorce to the wife on mutual consent. Thereafter the husband
remained absent and thus, the husband was proceeded ex parte.
The wife held a degree in LLB, MBA and was professionally quali�ed in Gems and Gemology. She owned a business named
IDT Laboratory with a part-time work. The net worth of the business was disclosed as Rs. 15 lakhs with a gross pro�t of Rs. 4
lakhs per annum. The wife also claimed rental income of Rs. 15,000 and apart from above-mentioned incomes, she held four
FDRs amounting to Rs. 4,26,021 approximately. Further, the wife claimed a monthly expenditure of Rs. 1,18,633 including Rs.
36,606 for her child’s education, stationery, and entertainment. Also, the wife �led an a�davit where the husband’s monthly
income was claimed to be at least Rs. 2 lakhs.
2 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
The husband was proceeded ex-parte and the Judge, Family Court passed a decree for divorce but denied maintenance
We'doflike
pendente lite and held that the wife was capable to show you
maintaining notifications
herself. forthe
Further, thehusband’s
latest income, who was a practicing
advocate was assessed by the Family Court news
to beand
notupdates.
less than Rs. 1 lakh per month and considering Rs. 36,066 to be the
monthly expenditure of child who was joint liability of both parties, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month
towards maintenance of the minor child. The wife was granted litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000.
Cancel Allow
The Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and opined that that there was no straitjacket mechanism for �xing the
quantum of maintenance and relevant factors for deciding it were the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children, whether the wife was educated and professionally quali�ed, whether the wife had any independent
source of income, whether the income was su�cient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home, whether the wife was employed prior to her marriage, whether she was working
during the subsistence of the marriage, whether the wife was required to sacri�ce her employment opportunities for
nurturing the family, child rearing and looking after adult members of the family.
The Court noted the status of parties along with the standard of living in the matrimonial home and income of husband who
was a practicing advocate for 20 Years. The Court further observed that based on the above-mentioned parameters for the
determination of maintenance, the amount should be reasonable and realistic. The wife was also entitled to enjoy the same
amenities as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.
The Court opined that merely because the wife was earning, her right to get maintenance would not be barred. The
parameters for the decision were whether her income was su�cient to maintain herself and her child, duration of marriage
and conduct of parties. The Court also observed that the obligation of husband to provide maintenance was on higher
pedestal than wife since the provision for grant of maintenance/interim maintenance for women and children in the
concerned statutes, i.e., Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; or Special Marriage Act, 1954, was keeping in perspective the
principle under Article 15(3) of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court modi�ed Family Court’s order and held that the wife was also entitled to maintenance of Rs. 15,000
3 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
per month apart from the maintenance of Rs. 20,000 for her minor child and further directed the husband to clear the
arrears of maintenance. We'd like to show you notifications for the latest
news and updates.
[ ]
Cancel Allow
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: T. S. Ahuja, Varun Singh Ahuja and Ridhi Kapoor, Advocates
4 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
We'd like to show you notifications for the latest
news and updates.
Tags : bar | Delhi High Court | determination | Earning | family court | maintenance | Minor child | parameters |
standard of living
Cancel Allow
MOST READ
24 hours 7 days All time
Case Tribunals/Commissions/ Case Briefs Supreme Court Case Briefs High Courts
Briefs Regulatory Bodies SC restores bail granted to BJP’s Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR
NGT halts all ongoing illegal Girraj Singh Malinga in 2022 for against two people who allegedly
constructions without mandatory offences under IPC and SC/ST Act slapped a Member of Parliament
environmental clearances in Noida belonging to Scheduled Caste
and Greater Noida
5 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
We'd like to show you notifications for the latest
news and updates.
Cancel Allow
Law School Moot Court Law School Moot Court Case Briefs High Courts
News Announcements News Announcements [THINKBOOK v THINBOOK ]
PES University | National Moot 2nd National the Chamber of Tax Lenovo’s THINK family of marks
Court Competition 2025 [21st to Consultants Indirect Tax Moot Court declared distinctive; Madras HC
23rd February] Competition, 2025 directs removal of infringing
‘THINBOOK’ Mark
News Submissions Article Submissions
[email protected] [email protected] Download SCC Online App for
Android Users/IOS Users
Disclaimer : The content of this Blog are for informational purposes only and for the reader's personal non-
commercial use. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and do not constitute
6 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
Wife not barred from maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only because of her ea... https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/07/wife-not-barred-to-maintenance-only-becaus...
legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. EBC Publishing
We'd like
Pvt. Ltd. disclaims all liability to any person fortoany
show youor
loss notifications for the latest
damage caused by errors or omissions, whether
news
arising from and updates.
negligence, accident or any other cause.
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cancel Allow
7 of 7 17-12-2024, 16:21
