Second-Year Law Notes & Flashcards

This classical articulation reflects the deep-rooted obligation under Hindu jurisprudence to provide maintenance to dependent family members, particularly the wife. Maintenance is not viewed merely as a matter of charity or benevolence, but as a legal and moral duty flowing from the marital relationship. Modern statutory law in India has reinforced and structured this obligation through multiple enactments.  

Under Hindu law, the right of a wife to claim maintenance is governed through three distinct statutory frameworks, each operating independently:  

• BNSS (Section 125)
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Sections 24 and 25)
• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Section 18)

It is important to note that these remedies are independent and concurrent. A claim under one statute does not bar relief under another, though courts ensure that there is no unjust enrichment or duplication of benefits.  

I. Maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) provides for maintenance in the context of matrimonial proceedings. The Act recognises two broad categories of maintenance:  

• Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings (Section 24)
• Permanent alimony and maintenance (Section 25)

A. Maintenance Pendente Lite – Section 24 

Section 24 empowers the court to grant interim or temporary maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. This provision applies when either spouse lacks sufficient independent income for their support and to meet the expenses of litigation.  

Key features of Section 24: 

• Either the husband or the wife may apply for maintenance.
• The applicant must establish:

• Lack of sufficient independent income for sustenance, and
• Inability to bear litigation expenses.

• The court considers the income and resources of both parties while determining the quantum.
• If the respondent has no means or income, the court may decline to grant maintenance.

A significant aspect of Section 24 is that conduct of the applicant is irrelevant. Even allegations of adultery or matrimonial misconduct do not disentitle a spouse from claiming interim maintenance. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the financially weaker party is not handicapped in pursuing or defending matrimonial litigation.  

The court may also consider factors such as: 

• Number of dependents of the respondent
• Overall financial obligations
• Standard of living enjoyed during marriage

Importantly, support received from relatives or friends does not bar a claim under Section 24. Courts have consistently held that maintenance cannot be denied on this ground.  

Courts are also prohibited from using maintenance as a tool for coercion. Withholding maintenance to compel reconciliation amounts to an abuse of judicial power.  

An application under Section 24 may be filed at any stage of the matrimonial proceedings, either before or after filing the written statement. Withdrawal of the main petition does not absolve the respondent of liability to pay interim maintenance already ordered. However, if the matrimonial petition itself is dismissed, a fresh application under Section 24 does not survive.  

B. Permanent Alimony – Section 25 

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with permanent alimony and maintenance, which may be granted either at the time of passing a decree or at any time thereafter.  

Salient features of Section 25: 

• Either spouse may apply for permanent alimony.
• Maintenance may be awarded:

• As a lump sum, or
• As periodic payments.

• The duration of maintenance may extend up to the lifetime of the applicant.

While determining the amount, the court considers: 

• Income and property of both parties
• Conduct of the parties
• Circumstances of the case
• Existence of dependent family members

As a general practice, courts often award approximately one-fifth of the husband’s income, subject to adjustment based on the wife’s own earnings.  

The right under Section 25 is statutory in nature and cannot be waived by private agreement. Any agreement whereby a wife relinquishes her right to claim maintenance is legally unenforceable.  

The expression “any decree” under Section 25 has wide amplitude and includes decrees of:  

• Divorce
• Judicial separation
• Restitution of conjugal rights
• Nullity of marriage (void or voidable)

Thus, even a wife from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 25. The court may grant permanent alimony even where the matrimonial petition is dismissed, as dismissal also results in a decree.  

Conduct and Quantum of Maintenance 

The role of conduct under Section 25 is limited and discretionary. Even if the wife has been guilty of matrimonial misconduct or is responsible for the breakdown of marriage, the court is not barred from granting maintenance. Conduct may influence the quantum, but not the entitlement.  

In Gulab v Kamat (AIR 1985 Bom 88), it was held that a wife is entitled to maintenance even where a decree of divorce is passed on the ground of her adultery.  

Similarly, in Jagdish v Manjula (AIR 1975 Cal 64), the Calcutta High Court held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because a decree for cruelty has been passed against her.  

The same principle applies in cases of desertion. Courts have recognised that denying maintenance altogether may push a woman into destitution or immoral circumstances, which the law seeks to prevent.  

II. Maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a summary and speedy remedy to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It is secular in nature and applies irrespective of personal law.  

Under Section 125, if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the First Class may order monthly maintenance.  

Originally, the maximum limit was Rs. 500 per month. However, by Amendment Act No. 50 of 2001, this ceiling has been removed, giving Magistrates discretion to award an appropriate amount.  

A wife is justified in refusing to live with her husband if: 

• He has contracted another marriage, or
• He keeps a mistress.

However, a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 if: 

• She is living in adultery
• She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason
• The parties are living separately by mutual consent

The Supreme Court has clarified that the term “wife” under Section 125 refers only to a legally wedded wife. While acknowledging the hardship caused to women unknowingly entering relationships with married men, the Court has observed that this lacuna can only be remedied by legislative intervention.  

Nevertheless, illegitimate children born from such relationships are entitled to maintenance under Section 125.  

III. Maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 

Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) specifically governs the maintenance rights of a Hindu wife.  

Maintenance of Wife 

A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. This right generally operates when the wife resides with her husband.  

If the wife ceases to be Hindu by conversion, she forfeits her right to maintenance. Additionally, unchastity affects her entitlement under this Act.  

Right to Live Separately 

A Hindu wife may live separately without forfeiting her right to maintenance if:  

• The husband deserts or wilfully neglects her
• The husband treats her with cruelty
• The husband suffers from virulent leprosy
• The husband has another living wife
• The husband keeps a concubine
• The husband converts to another religion
• Any other justifiable cause exists

Forfeiture of Maintenance 

The right to separate residence and maintenance is lost if the wife:  

• Is unchaste, or
• Ceases to be Hindu by conversion

Thus, the right under Section 18 is qualified and not absolute.  

Maintenance in Live-in Relationships 

Gujarat and Bombay High Courts 

The Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court have consistently held that maintenance cannot be granted to a woman who has lived with a man without a valid marriage, even if they considered themselves husband and wife. Granting maintenance in such cases would amount to recognising bigamy.  

This view was reiterated in Ranjana Kejrival v Vinod Kejrival (AIR 2009 Bom 176), where a distinction was drawn between a void marriage and no marriage at all.  

Delhi High Court – Contrary View 

The Delhi High Court has adopted a more equitable approach. Where a man conceals his subsisting marriage and induces another woman into a marital relationship, the second wife—if unaware of the prior marriage—may be entitled to maintenance.  

This view was expressed in: 

• Narinder Chawla v Manjeet Chawla MANU/SC/0389/2004
• Suresh Khullar v Vijay Khullar MANU/DE/4762/2009

The court reasoned that a husband cannot be allowed to benefit from his own fraud.  

Supreme Court’s Observation 

In D Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal MANU/SC/0872/2010, the Supreme Court examined the concept of palimony, as developed in certain jurisdictions in the United States. Palimony refers to maintenance granted to a woman who has lived with a man for a substantial period without marriage and is subsequently deserted.  

While no uniform doctrine of palimony exists in Indian law, the Court discussed the evolving nature of relationships and emphasised that not all live-in relationships qualify for maintenance. The issue remains largely within the domain of legislative policy.  

Conclusion 

The law relating to maintenance of a wife under Hindu law reflects a balance between moral obligation, social justice, and statutory discipline. While personal conduct and marital fault may influence the quantum of maintenance, they rarely extinguish the right altogether. The overarching objective across statutes remains the prevention of destitution and the protection of dignity.  

Copyright © 2026 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.