Section 24 maintenance depends on insufficient independent income, not merely disparity between spouses’ earnings.

The parties married in 1983 and have two adult children.

After the husband instituted divorce proceedings on the ground of cruelty, the wife sought pendent lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

The Family Court dismissed her application, finding that the parties were retired government employees with pensions and savings, and that the wife’s financial position was at least equal to the husband’s.

On appeal, the wife challenged the assessment of their respective financial circumstances, including the treatment of her retirement benefits as income and the alleged failure to account for the husband’s assets and business income.

The parties filed updated financial affidavits during the appeal.

1. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the wife’s Section 24 application warranted appellate interference under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. Whether the wife had sufficient independent income and resources for her reasonable support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, considering the parties’ incomes, assets, and reasonable needs.

Section 24 HMA permits interim maintenance and litigation expenses where a spouse lacks independent income sufficient for their support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings; the Court must consider the incomes of both parties and determine a reasonable amount.

Under Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, the discretion is judicial and fact-specific, and education or the financial position of the applicant’s parents does not itself defeat a claim.

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, requires consideration of the parties’ status, reasonable needs, independent income, standard of living, the respondent’s capacity and obligations, and the circumstances as a whole; maintenance should be reasonable and neither oppressive nor inadequate.

Section 24 does not equalise spouses’ incomes; a difference in income alone does not establish entitlement (K.N. v. R.G., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704).

A retirement corpus is not itself recurring income, although income generated from it and the corpus as part of a party’s overall financial resources may be considered.

The Court distinguished the wife’s accumulated retirement corpus from recurring income, while considering the interest it generated and her overall financial resources.

Her updated affidavit disclosed monthly pension of about ₹35,329 and investment interest of about ₹34,000, giving recurring income of approximately ₹69,000; she also had savings and investments, no dependent children, and access to ECHS medical facilities.

The Court found that her claimed expenditure was not conclusive and had to be assessed for reasonableness.

Although the husband had a higher pension and investments, the Court considered his reasonable expenses and his dependent, aged mother.

It declined to attribute additional recurring income to his former business without supporting evidence, and held that donations alone did not prove undisclosed income.

On the evidence, the wife’s higher claimed expenditure and the husband’s higher pension did not establish that she lacked sufficient means for her reasonable support and litigation expenses.

It clarified that the dismissal was not based on treating her entire retirement corpus as income, nor on the proposition that any independent income or comparable incomes bar maintenance.

The Family Court’s reasoning could not be endorsed in its entirety, but its ultimate dismissal of the application did not warrant interference.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.