Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with providing temporary financial support to a dependent spouse during ongoing legal proceedings. In simpler terms, it means giving necessary living expenses and financial assistance to either the wife or the husband while their legal case is still in progress.

This support is granted to ensure that the dependent spouse can meet their basic needs during the litigation process.

What is Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (referred to as ‘HMA,1955’) outlines a provision.

“24. 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 on 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”. It may be noted that this section is confined to maintenance (pendent lite) of a spouse. It does not deal with children. It does require that there should be a formal application.”

In any legal case under the HMA, 1955, if the court determines that one spouse lacks the means to support themselves and cover the legal expenses, they can, upon the request of the dependent spouse, order the other spouse to provide:

The expenses related to the legal proceedings.

• A reasonable monthly sum, considering both spouses’ incomes, during the ongoing legal proceedings.
• In the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a similar provision is found in Section 36. However, it’s important to note that this Act only allows the wife to claim alimony pendente lite (support during the case’s pendency) and it does not apply to the husband.

Furthermore, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, addresses interim maintenance for the wife by the husband.

Section 24’s interim maintenance provision is applicable to cases involving restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), judicial separation (Section 10), void marriages (Section 11), voidable marriages (Section 12) and divorce (Section 13). Either the husband or the wife can seek interim maintenance for themselves or their child, regardless of who initiated the legal proceedings. The key condition for granting interim maintenance is that one party involved in the case lacks adequate income to support themselves and cover the legal expenses. Even if the Respondent denies the existence of the marriage, the court can use its authority under Section 24.

Objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Maintenance pendente lite, as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, serves the purpose of offering financial support to the spouse making the claim, along with covering the necessary legal expenses. The primary aim of this provision is to assist the claimant spouse financially, enabling them to continue with the legal proceedings and sustain themselves.

It’s important to note that under HMA, 1955, either spouse can request pendente lite maintenance. However, in other statutes like the Special Marriage Act (1954) and the Criminal Procedure Code (1973), only the wife can seek maintenance and the husband cannot make such a claim.

In the case of Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977), it was determined that Section 24’s purpose is to provide financial aid to the financially disadvantaged spouse during the proceedings. This ensures that they have enough funds to participate in the legal process without suffering due to a lack of resources.

When Can an Application under Section 24 be Made?

An application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be submitted at any time during the ongoing legal case. If the wife is the respondent, she can request this grant before filing her written statement.

In the case of Chagan Lal v. Sakkha Devi (1974), the Rajasthan High Court stressed that applications for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA, 1955 and for maintenance under any other matrimonial statute should be resolved as quickly as possible, but in any case, before the main application is decided.

Procedure under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 a matter is contemplated as a summary enquiry and not a full-fledged trial at length. If the court believes that the applicant is not likely to succeed in the dispute then in such a case the court cannot solely on the basis of such ground refuse to grant interim maintenance and expense of proceedings under Section 24.

In the case of Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996), the Bombay High Court held that the fact that there is a strong possibility of a marriage being declared null shall not be a ground for denying interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding to the spouse claiming such interim maintenance under Section 24 of HMA, 1955.

The proviso appended to Section 24 states that the application for the payment of interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings shall utmost be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the spouse.

Power of the Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Regarding the court’s authority under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the courts have the discretion to decide the amount of interim maintenance one spouse must pay to the other, based on reasonable grounds. To exercise this discretion, the court considers the income of the spouse requesting interim maintenance and the income of the other spouse who is obligated to provide it.

In the case of Rajendran v. Gajalakshmi (1985), the Madras High Court held that the interim maintenance specified in Section 24 should be a ‘reasonable’ amount. It was further established that mentioning the wife’s brother as an income-earner is not a valid reason to deny her interim maintenance under Section 24. The Madras High Court considered an award of Rs. 150 per month by the lower court as reasonable.

The conduct of the parties involved is a significant factor affecting the court’s discretion under Section 24. The court takes into account the behaviour of the parties. For instance, if one spouse ends cohabitation due to their own misconduct, the court may decline to grant them relief under Section 24.

It’s crucial to understand that the court’s discretion is judicial and not arbitrary. This discretion must align with the principles of matrimonial law and the objectives of the Act. In Mukan Kuwar v. Ajit Chand (1958), it was established that the court’s discretionary power should be guided by sound legal principles, rather than arbitrary decision-making.

Quantum of Maintenance under Section 24

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 involves a summary inquiry, not a lengthy trial. Even if the court believes the applicant may not ultimately win the case, it cannot solely deny interim maintenance and expense of proceedings under Section 24 based on this ground.

In the case of Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996), the Bombay High Court ruled that the strong possibility of a marriage being declared null should not be a reason to deny interim maintenance and expenses to the spouse seeking such support under Section 24 of HMA, 1955.

The proviso attached to Section 24 requires that the application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings be resolved within sixty days from the date of serving notice on the spouse.

Regarding the amount of interim maintenance under Section 24, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 doesn’t specify strict rules. Instead, the amount depends on several factors, including:

• The duration of the marriage.
• The behavior and financial means of the spouses.
• The spouse’s ability to earn income.
• The education and maintenance of children.
• Other reasonable needs of the claimant.

It’s important to note that when granting maintenance pendente lite, the court has wide discretion but must exercise it reasonably and in alignment with Section 24 and the principles of matrimonial law.

In the case of Dinesh Mehta v. Usha Mehta (1978), the Bombay High Court clarified that Section 24 of HMA, 1955 focuses on determining a reasonable amount for interim maintenance. This involves finding a balance among various competing claims. The court emphasised that reasonableness means that the wife should have access to comforts and amenities similar to what she had while residing with her husband, excluding any reduction resulting from the separation and the creation of two separate households.

Maintenance to Children under Section 24 of HMA, 1955

Regarding maintenance for children under Section 24 of HMA, 1955, the primary goal of this provision is to provide interim maintenance to the spouse making the claim, along with covering the expenses of the legal proceedings. However, in exceptional cases, the court can order maintenance for children who are dependent on the spouse seeking interim maintenance and when the court deems such a claim justified.

In the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997), the Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of Section 24 should not be narrowly interpreted. It was emphasised that the wife’s right under Hindu Law to claim maintenance pendente lite includes not only her own maintenance but also that of her unmarried daughter living with her.

Expenses of the Proceedings

When it comes to the expenses of the proceedings, a spouse can request interim maintenance along with the necessary costs of the legal process under Section 24 of HMA, 1955. This provision ensures that the spouse has sufficient funds to cover the expenses of the proceedings, which have a broad scope. These expenses encompass court fees, legal fees, costs related to witnesses, photocopying and typing charges, process fees and more.

In the case of Prili Parihar v. Kailash Singh Parihar (1975), the court determined that it has the authority to grant additional expenses beyond the initially approved amount if the need arises later in the proceedings.

Enforcement of Orders

Courts have various methods, in addition to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for enforcing orders related to interim maintenance and expenses of legal proceedings. In the case of Narinder Kaur v. Prilam Singh (1985), an employed husband who refused to comply with the order to pay maintenance pendente lite was held in contempt of court and sentenced to four months in prison.

In the case of Anita Karmotrar v. Birendra Chandra Kannokat (1962), the Calcutta High Court affirmed that it is a permissible step to stay the petitioner’s proceedings if the husband does not comply with the order to pay maintenance pendente lite and expenses. It was also noted that Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code grants the court the power to do so.

In the case of Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003), the Supreme Court clarified that the main condition for granting maintenance pendente lite is to determine whether the spouse seeking such interim maintenance has sufficient independent income to support themselves. If it is established that the spouse lacks sufficient income, the court is obligated to grant interim maintenance and the only discretion left to the court pertains to the amount of such interim maintenance.

The impact of non-compliance with an order on a pending appeal was discussed in the case of Banso v. Sarwan (1978), where the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of an appeal filed by the wife after her petition for judicial separation was dismissed by the lower court. The husband failed to obey the court’s order and as a result, the High Court allowed the appeal based on his non-compliance.

Important Judgements on Section 24 of Hindu Marriage

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2004 Jhar 22): This case emphasises that Section 24 does not make a distinction between the rights of a wife for maintenance under different sections (12 or 13) of the Act.

Captain, Ramesh Chander v. Veena Kaushal (AIR 1978 SC 1807): This judgment clarifies that divorce proceedings ending adversely to one party do not automatically end the right to maintenance. The right to maintenance continues unless the parties come to terms regarding the quantum or right to maintenance.

Manokaran v. Devaki (AIR 2003 Mad 212): This case highlights that a wife, during divorce proceedings, can claim maintenance pendente lite if she demonstrates insufficient independent income for her support.

Kanchan v. Kamalendra (AIR 1993 Bom 493): This case notes that Section 24 allows both the wife and husband to claim maintenance pendente lite if they lack an independent income. However, the husband must show a physical or mental disability that prevents him from earning a livelihood.

Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Vinod Kejriwal (AIR 1993 Bom 168): This judgment establishes that a spouse can maintain an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while other applications under the Code of Civil Procedure are pending.

Dr. Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Keshireo Rajaram Sawai (AIR 1987 SC 1100): This case explains that Section 125(1)(d) imposes a liability on both sons and daughters to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain themselves.

Captain Ramesh Chander v. Veena Kaushal (AIR 1978 SC 1807): This case differentiates between a final determination under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and an order pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The latter is concerned with paying the expenses of the proceeding and a reasonable monthly sum during the proceedings based on the parties’ income.

Conclusion

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, empowers Indian courts to grant interim maintenance and expenses of legal proceedings to spouses involved in matrimonial disputes. It allows a financially dependent spouse, either husband or wife, to seek financial support during the ongoing legal case.

The court may order the other spouse to pay for the expenses of the proceedings, including legal fees, court costs and other essential costs. The primary objective is to ensure that the claimant spouse can maintain themselves and engage in the legal process effectively. The court has the discretion to determine the amount based on factors such as income, conduct and the needs of the parties involved.