Brief Stay Duration Cannot Be Sole Ground to Deny Interim Maintenance Under Section 24 HMA

The Petitioner (wife) and Respondent (husband) were married and lived together for approximately 6–7 months before separating.

The Petitioner filed I.A. No. II in M.C. No. 2153/2024 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, seeking interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month and litigation expenses of ₹1,00,000.

She claimed to be an unemployed student, while alleging the husband earns ₹8,00,000 per month as an accountant in Dubai.

The Family Court, Bengaluru, dismissed the application on September 17, 2025, solely on the grounds that the parties lived together for only 6–7 months.

The Petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing an application for interim maintenance solely based on the short duration of the marriage/cohabitation.

2. Whether the Family Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion in accordance with the objective and scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings to a spouse who has no independent income sufficient for their support.

The rule establishes that maintenance is intended to provide financial assistance to an indigent spouse to ensure they do not suffer unduly during litigation due to a lack of funds.

While the "duration of the marriage" is a factor in determining the quantum, it does not serve as a statutory bar to granting relief.

The court's discretion under this section must be judicial and not arbitrary.

The High Court found that the Family Court erred by assigning a single, non-dispositive reason—the short duration of cohabitation (6–7 months)—to reject the maintenance claim.

The Court clarified that Section 24 is a summary enquiry intended to prevent indigence during litigation and that even if a petitioner is unlikely to succeed in the main dispute, interim maintenance cannot be denied on that ground alone.

The Court noted that the Family Court failed to consider the primary factors for Section 24, including the relative incomes of the parties and the wife's status as a student.

By dismissing the application without assigning "proper reasons" or examining the affidavits of assets and liabilities, the lower court failed to follow the established legal objective of the HMA.

The matter was remanded to the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, for fresh consideration of I.A. No. II based on the affidavits of assets and liabilities and other materials. The Court directed both parties to appear before the Family Court on June 10, 2026, and instructed the lower court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.