Maintenance pendente lite under the Hindu Marriage Act (Section 24)

1) Meaning: what is “maintenance pendente lite”? #

Maintenance pendente lite means temporary financial support granted during the pendency of a matrimonial proceeding (like divorce, judicial separation, restitution, etc.) so that the spouse who does not have sufficient independent income can:

1. maintain themselves during the case, and
2. meet the litigation expenses to properly contest the case.

It is strictly “during pendency”—i.e., it is an interim arrangement, not a post-decree remedy.

2) Legal basis #

The legal basis is Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), titled “Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings”. It empowers the court to order the respondent to pay a reasonable monthly amount and expenses of the proceeding, having regard to the income of both parties. The proviso also indicates the application should be disposed as far as possible within 60 days from service of notice.

3) When (and to whom) Section 24 applies #

• It applies in any proceeding under the HMA (trial stage; and courts also entertain it in appellate proceedings as part of “proceeding”).
• Either spouse (wife or husband) can apply—whoever lacks sufficient independent income for support and litigation.

Key condition (test): whether the applicant has independent income sufficient for support (not whether they are merely educated or “capable” in theory).

4) What things are covered under Section 24? #

Section 24 typically covers two heads:

(A) Monthly maintenance (interim support) #

To meet day-to-day living expenses during the case, such as:

• food, clothing, residence/rent, utilities
• medical needs
• transport and basic lifestyle consistent with the marital standard (within paying capacity)

(B) “Expenses of proceedings” (litigation expenses) #

Commonly includes:

• lawyer’s fees, drafting/typing, photocopying, court fees (where applicable)
• travel expenses for attending court
• miscellaneous costs necessary to contest the case effectively

Note: In appropriate facts, the Supreme Court has held that while fixing the wife’s pendente lite maintenance, the court can consider that she is also maintaining a dependent child living with her (so the maintenance figure can reflect that reality).

5) How to file the application #

1. File an Interlocutory Application (IA) under Section 24 HMAin the same pending matrimonial petition (or appeal), seeking:
   • monthly maintenance pendente lite, and
   • one-time / staged litigation expenses.
2. Support it with an affidavit stating:
   • your income (if any), assets, liabilities, monthly expenses,
   • the respondent’s income/standard of living (to the extent known),
   • dependency responsibilities (child/parent etc.).
3. Court issues notice to the other side → reply affidavit/objections.
4. Courts generally decide it on affidavits + prima facie documents (salary slips, bank statements, ITRs, rent receipts, etc.), and may pass:
   • an interim arrangement quickly, then
   • a final Section 24 order after fuller disclosure.
5. Enforcement: if the respondent defaults, recovery can be sought through execution/appropriate coercive steps as per family court/civil procedure.

Best-practice on disclosure: The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v Neha laid down structured guidance to reduce delays and ensure fair assessment—especially insistence on financial disclosure/affidavits and avoiding overlapping/conflicting maintenance orders across multiple proceedings.

6) Court’s discretion (how the court decides amount) #

Section 24 is discretionary but not arbitrary. Courts typically consider:

• income and earning capacity of both parties (realistic, not hypothetical),
• applicant’s reasonable needs,
• respondent’s paying capacity and liabilities (dependents, loans, rent, etc.),
• standard of living during marriage,
• conduct relevant to finances (e.g., deliberate concealment of income),
• cost of living/inflation.

Two important clarifications from the Supreme Court:

• The order is conditional—it depends on the applicant not having sufficient independent income.
• It is not meant to “equalise” incomes; it must be reasonable, not punitive or windfall.

Also, High Courts have cautioned that Section 24 is not to encourage voluntary idleness—if a spouse is genuinely able and deliberately not working, the court may deny or reduce interim maintenance on facts.

7) “During pendency, not afterwards” #

• Section 24 operates only during pendency of the HMA proceeding.
• After the case ends (decree/decision), the remedy is generally Section 25 HMA (permanent alimony/maintenance), not Section 24.

Sohan Lal v. Smt. Kamlesh (P&H HC, 1984) #

Facts: Husband filed S.9 HMA petition. Wife applied under S.24 for maintenance pendente lite + expenses. Husband withdrew the main petition before S.24 was decided; trial court treated S.24 as infructuous.

Issue: Does a pending S.24 application survive after withdrawal/disposal of the main HMA petition? If yes, till when is maintenance payable?

Held: Yes, the court can still decide the S.24 application (otherwise a party could defeat it by withdrawal/delay). But maintenance pendente lite is payable only up to the date of disposal of the main petition, not beyond.

8) Landmark case laws #

(1) Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun (1997) #

Facts: Wife sought enhancement of maintenance pendente lite. She was also maintaining an unmarried daughter living with her.
Issue: While fixing Section 24 maintenance, can the court consider that the wife is supporting a dependent child with her?
Held: The Supreme Court held Section 24 cannot be read narrowly; while granting maintenance pendente lite to the wife, the court may factor that she is maintaining a dependent child living with her, and fix a realistic amount accordingly.

(2) Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain (Supreme Court, order dated 30 March 2017) #

Facts: Wife claimed pendente lite maintenance under Section 24; husband argued she was educated/qualified and therefore not entitled; trial court rejected, High Court granted substantial interim maintenance.
Issue: What is the correct test for Section 24, and what factors are irrelevant?
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that interim maintenance is conditional on the applicant lacking sufficient independent income for support; mere education/capability does not defeat the claim by itself, and the financial position of the wife’s parents is not a material factor for fixing the husband’s liability.

(3) Rajnesh v Neha (Supreme Court, 2020) #

Facts: Multiple maintenance proceedings under different laws caused inconsistent orders and delay; the Court addressed systemic issues in maintenance litigation.
Issue: How should courts streamline and standardise maintenance determination (including interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA)?
Held: The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines stressing early determination of interim maintenance, uniform financial disclosure/affidavits, and preventing unfair duplication by considering maintenance already awarded in other proceedings.

(4) Mamta Jaiswal v Rajesh Jaiswal (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2000) #

Facts: Interim maintenance was sought though the applicant was qualified and had prior work background; dispute arose on entitlement and approach.
Issue: Can Section 24 be used as a tool to remain idle despite capacity to earn?
Held: The court emphasised Section 24 is meant to enable genuine support and litigation ability; it should not be converted into a premium for deliberate unemployment/avoidance of work, and courts may refuse or tailor relief on facts.