Introduction to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Matrimonial litigation is often not just an emotional struggle but also a financial burden. Recognising that one party to a marriage may be placed at a disadvantage due to lack of income, the framers of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) incorporated provisions for financial assistance during the pendency of legal proceedings.

Section 24 of the Act, titled “Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings”, plays a pivotal role in ensuring fairness and equality between the spouses while matrimonial disputes are adjudicated. The expression pendente lite literally means “during the litigation.”

This provision empowers the court to order either the husband or the wife to pay a reasonable amount towards:

1. Maintenance – to support the applicant spouse during the pendency of proceedings, and
2. Litigation expenses – to enable the applicant to contest the case effectively.

The hallmark of Section 24 is its gender-neutral character: it is not confined to wives alone. If the husband lacks independent income, he too can seek support from the wife, provided she has sufficient means. The guiding principle is the absence of sufficient independent income for sustenance and litigation, not the gender of the applicant.

The objective of Section 24 is not to punish the financially stronger spouse, nor to enrich the claimant, but rather to place both parties on an equal footing before the court. This ensures that justice is not compromised by financial inequality, and that neither spouse is denied the opportunity to defend or pursue their claims solely for want of resources.

Over the years, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have shaped the contours of Section 24 through landmark judgments. They have clarified questions such as whether mere earning capacity bars relief, the reasonable quantum of maintenance, the scope of litigation expenses, and the time within which applications should be decided.

Thus, Section 24 HMA acts as a safeguard of equity, balancing the financial scales in matrimonial disputes, and remains one of the most frequently invoked provisions in family law litigation in India.

Leading Judgments

1. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801

• Facts: The wife applied for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA during divorce proceedings. The husband argued that she was qualified and capable of earning, hence not entitled to maintenance.
• Held:
• The Supreme Court clarified that Section 24 is not intended to equalize the income of both spouses.
• The real test: Whether the applicant spouse has sufficient independent income for their support.
• Merely being qualified or capable of earning does not disentitle maintenance unless actual earning is shown.
• Maintenance should enable the applicant to live with dignity, not in luxury.

2. Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324

• Facts: Multiple maintenance claims were filed under CrPC, DV Act, and HMA, leading to confusion and delay.
• Held:
• Laid down uniform guidelines for all courts dealing with maintenance (including HMA Section 24).
• Both parties must disclose income, assets, liabilities, expenditure through affidavits.
• Maintenance must be fixed realistically, considering status, needs of children, standard of living.
• Prevents forum shopping and multiplicity of orders.
• Directed that maintenance applications should be decided within 4–6 months.
• Impact: This judgment is now the go-to reference in any maintenance case (including Section 24 HMA).

3. Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977) 3 SCC 99

• Facts: Husband opposed wife’s Section 24 application saying she was well-educated and could support herself.
• Held:
• Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the wife is educated or capable of earning does not bar her from getting interim maintenance.
• What matters is whether she actually has sufficient independent income.
• Litigation expenses are also covered, as the provision aims to ensure equal footing in matrimonial litigation.

4. Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199

• Facts: Wife’s interim maintenance was denied because she was said to be capable of working.
• Held:
• Court held that mere capacity to earn is not enough; husband must prove she is actually earning and has sufficient income.
• Maintenance cannot be denied only on speculative grounds like “she can work.”
• Reaffirmed that maintenance is to secure a dignified life, not as charity.

5. Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi (Delhi HC, 2011)

• Facts: Husband sought interim maintenance under Section 24 claiming he had no independent income, while wife was earning.
• Held:
• Section 24 is gender-neutral – available to husband as well, not just wife.
• Maintenance should be reasonable, not excessive.
• Purpose is to prevent one party from being financially handicapped during litigation.
• Recognized that husbands too may sometimes lack income and deserve support.

6. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353

• Facts: Wife’s application for maintenance was pending for long without decision, causing hardship.
• Held:
• Maintenance is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right of the spouse unable to support themselves.
• Directed that applications under Section 24 should be decided expeditiously, ideally within 60 days.
• Recognized that delays defeat the very object of Section 24, which is for immediate relief.

7. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 7

• Facts: Dispute over the amount of interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA.
• Held:
• Maintenance should be realistic considering status, income, needs of parties, and cost of living.
• It should not be so meagre that the spouse cannot live with dignity, nor so excessive that it ruins the paying spouse.
• Stressed a balanced approach – ensuring reasonable standard of living without undue burden. 

Conclusion

Begin with the context of matrimonial litigation and the financial hardships often faced by one spouse. Introduce Section 24 HMA as a provision designed to provide interim financial support to ensure both parties can contest the proceedings on an equal footing.

Object of the Provision

• Explain the purpose of Section 24 – to prevent financial imbalance during litigation.
• Mention that it is meant to support, not enrich the applicant.
• Highlight its gender-neutral nature – both husband and wife can seek relief.

Who Can Claim under Section 24?

• Either spouse can file an application.
• Pre-condition: the applicant must not have sufficient independent income for support or litigation expenses.
• The opposite party should have the financial capacity to pay.

Scope of Relief under Section 24

• Maintenance pendente lite (financial support during litigation).
• Litigation expenses (cost of contesting the case).
• Court considers factors such as:
• Income of both parties
• Standard of living
• Needs of dependents (children, if applicable)
• Reasonableness of claim

Timeframe for Disposal

• Courts have directed that applications under Section 24 must be disposed of within 60 days (Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, 2015).
• Delay defeats the very purpose of interim relief. 

Section 24 HMA ensures fairness, equality, and access to justice in matrimonial disputes. The provision is not punitive but protective, ensuring that lack of means does not deny a spouse the ability to contest proceedings with dignity.

Share this News