Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is a comprehensive statute that governs various aspects of marriage, divorce, and maintenance among Hindus in India. One of the most significant provisions in this legislation concerning financial security post-marriage dissolution is Section 25, which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance. This section ensures that after the conclusion of matrimonial disputes, financial support is granted to a spouse who may be in need, thereby preventing economic hardship.

Understanding Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act

Section 25 provides that upon application by either spouse, the court may order permanent alimony and maintenance to be paid by the other spouse, either as a lump sum or through periodic payments (monthly, quarterly, or annually). The amount and duration are determined by the court, based on various factors such as the income and property of both parties, conduct during the marriage, and other relevant circumstances.

Key Provisions

• Application by Either Spouse: Either the husband or wife can seek maintenance post-divorce, judicial separation, annulment, or restitution of conjugal rights.
• Modes of Payment: The court can order a one-time lump sum payment (alimony) or recurring payments (maintenance).
• Modification or Cancellation: If circumstances change, either party may seek a variation in the maintenance order.
• Grounds for Cancellation: If the recipient remarries, or in cases where the wife is found to be unchaste or the husband has had sexual relations outside marriage, maintenance may be cancelled.

Text of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25.   Permanent alimony and maintenance

(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondents own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

Essentials for Claiming Maintenance under Section 25

Matrimonial Case Must Be Decreed

One crucial requirement under Section 25 is that maintenance can only be sought after the conclusion of a matrimonial case (divorce, judicial separation, annulment). Interim maintenance before the final decree is dealt with under Section 24 of the HMA.

Case Law: In Patel Dharamshi Premji vs. Bai Sakar Kanji (1967), the court clarified that either spouse can apply for maintenance even after the final divorce decree has been passed.

Filing a Separate Application

The spouse seeking maintenance must file a separate application under Section 25 before the same court that had jurisdiction over their original matrimonial case. Oral applications have also been permitted to reduce litigation expenses (Umarani vs. D. Vivekannandan, 2000).

Factors Affecting Maintenance Quantum

The court determines the maintenance amount based on several factors:

• Income and Property: Both movable and immovable assets of the parties are considered.
• Earning Capacity: The court assesses the actual and potential earning capacity of the spouse.
• Child Custody: The parent who has custody is more likely to receive maintenance.
• Number of Dependents: If a spouse has aged parents or disabled siblings to support, the court considers their financial burden.
• Standard of Living: The dependent spouse should not experience a drastic fall in their living standards.
• Conduct of Parties: Adultery, abuse, or misconduct may lead to a reduction or cancellation of maintenance.

Example: Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari & Anr (1970) ruled that 25% of the husband’s net income should be awarded as maintenance to the wife.

What are the Grounds for Cancelling or Modifying Maintenance?

Under Section 25(3), a maintenance order may be modified or revoked if:

• The recipient remarries.
• The wife has not remained chaste.
• The husband has engaged in extramarital affairs.
• There is a substantial change in financial circumstances.

Judicial Interpretation and Challenges

Constitutional Criticism of Section 25(3)

A major concern with Section 25(3) is its moral policing on sexual autonomy. The provision states that a divorced woman cannot engage in sexual relations without risking her maintenance, whereas a man merely needs to avoid extramarital relations to retain his claim. This raises concerns regarding gender equality and personal liberty under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Case Law: Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018) decriminalised adultery, yet Section 25(3) still penalises sexual relationships post-divorce.

Maintenance Rights of the Second Wife

Hindu law does not legally recognise a second wife, denying her maintenance rights under Section 25. However, courts have provided relief under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) if the husband deceived the second wife regarding his previous marriage.

• For Maintenance: Badshah vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse (2013) – The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a second wife deceived by her husband.
• Against Maintenance: Mangala Bhivaji Lad vs. Dhondiba Rambhau Aher (2010) – Held that only a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance.

Supreme Court Guidelines on Maintenance (Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2020)

The Supreme Court issued crucial guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020) to standardise maintenance awards:

• Prevention of multiple claims: Spouses must declare any prior maintenance awards.
• Maintenance to be awarded from the date of filing and not retrospectively.
• Quantum of maintenance: Courts must consider income, liabilities, and status of parties.
• Marriage duration matters: Prevents fraudulent claims by spouses seeking divorce solely for financial gain.

Relevant Case Laws on Maintenance Under Section 25 of HMA

Shailja vs. Khobbanna (2017)

In this case, the wife filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court seeking an increase in maintenance. The Family Court had initially awarded Rs 15,000 per month to the wife and Rs 10,000 for the child. However, the Karnataka High Court reduced this to Rs 6,000 each, citing that the wife was employed as a teacher.

The Supreme Court ruled that reducing maintenance solely on the basis of employment was unjust. The court emphasised that working women should not be penalised for earning, especially given the gender disparity and discrimination in the workplace. Thus, it restored the original maintenance order, affirming that employment does not disqualify a woman from receiving maintenance.

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017)

The case involved multiple litigations between the parties, starting with an application under Section 9 of HMA by the husband, followed by the wife’s case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The wife claimed maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and later sought judicial separation under Section 10 of HMA, along with permanent maintenance under Section 25. Initially, she was awarded Rs 2,500 per month, and Rs 2,000 for her son.

After the husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) in 2007, the wife sought an enhancement of maintenance. The court increased the amount to Rs 8,000 per month, which was later revised to Rs 16,000 by the High Court. The husband challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing the amount was excessive.

The Supreme Court considered the husband’s increased salary (Rs 95,000 per month) and the wife’s income (Rs 30,000 per month), along with the fact that their son had reached adulthood and the husband had remarried. Consequently, the court adjusted the maintenance to Rs 20,000, balancing the financial obligations of both parties.

Jaspreet Kaur & Others vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr (2019)

The appellant (wife) had filed for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC for her two children after being evicted from her matrimonial home in 2014. The Family Court initially granted maintenance in 2019 but later rejected the claim on revision, citing that the wife had already been awarded maintenance under Section 25 of HMA.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellant, stating that maintenance for a wife under Section 25 of HMA is separate from child maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The previous decree was overturned, ensuring that children’s rights to maintenance are protected independently of the spouse’s maintenance order.

Conclusion

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act plays a vital role in safeguarding financial security post-marriage. While it offers flexibility and judicial discretion in determining maintenance, its moralistic and outdated clauses require reform to ensure gender equality, fairness, and personal autonomy. Recent Supreme Court guidelines offer some clarity, but legislative intervention is needed to bring Section 25 in line with contemporary legal and social realities.

By addressing these concerns, India can move towards a more just and equitable family law system that ensures financial protection without compromising individual rights and freedoms.