THE LEGAL BRIDGE

thelegalbridge.in

Alimony and Maintenance — Sections 24 and 25

Topic 22 | Module 2: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | The Legal Bridge

For Judicial Service Aspirants: RJS | DJS | PCS-J | HJS | APO

Comprehensive Study Notes with Landmark Case Laws, Mnemonics & Exam Tips

Alimony and Maintenance — Sections 24 and 25

Relevant Provisions: Section 24 HMA (Pendente Lite) | Section 25 HMA (Permanent Alimony)

Priority: VERY HIGH | Exam Relevance: RJS / DJS / PCS-J / HJS / University Exams (HEAVILY TESTED)

1. Introduction

Alimony and maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 address one of the most practically important aspects of matrimonial litigation — the FINANCIAL SECURITY of spouses during and after matrimonial proceedings. Sections 24 and 25 HMA provide two complementary remedies: Section 24 grants MAINTENANCE PENDENTE LITE (during the pendency of proceedings) and LITIGATION EXPENSES, while Section 25 provides for PERMANENT ALIMONY AND MAINTENANCE (post-decree). Together, these provisions ensure that neither spouse is left destitute by matrimonial proceedings or their outcome.

These provisions are particularly important given the traditional gender dynamics of Hindu society. While gender-neutral on their face, maintenance provisions have historically been the primary financial safeguard for women, who have often been economically dependent on their husbands. The 2005 amendments to Hindu Succession Act, and the courts' progressive interpretation of maintenance provisions, have strengthened women's financial rights in matrimonial matters. Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) have systematised and rationalised the calculation of maintenance, providing clear guidelines for courts and litigants.

The landscape of maintenance law is complex, with multiple overlapping statutes providing relief. A Hindu woman may claim maintenance under: Section 24 and 25 HMA (during matrimonial proceedings or after divorce); Section 18 HAMA (Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act — separate residence and maintenance); Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS); the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Understanding the interplay between these remedies is essential for effective matrimonial practice.

This topic is HEAVILY TESTED in examinations. Questions focus on: (a) requirements and procedure for S.24 interim maintenance; (b) factors considered in determining quantum; (c) permanent alimony under S.25 — lump sum vs. periodic payments; (d) who can claim maintenance (husband or wife); (e) factors affecting maintenance — income, conduct, remarriage, changed circumstances; (f) interaction with S.125 CrPC and S.18 HAMA; (g) Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) guidelines. A thorough grasp is essential.

2. SECTION 24 — MAINTENANCE PENDENTE LITE AND EXPENSES OF PROCEEDINGS

2.1 Text of Section 24

Section 24 HMA (as amended) provides:

"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 of 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."

"Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."

2.2 Nature and Scope of S.24

Section 24 provides TWO distinct types of financial relief during the pendency of proceedings:

1. Maintenance pendente lite: Monthly maintenance during the proceedings — to enable the spouse without independent income to support themselves while litigation is pending.
2. Expenses of proceeding: Court costs, lawyers' fees, and other litigation expenses. Either a lump sum or as ordered by court.

2.3 Key Features of S.24

1. Gender-neutral: Available to EITHER the husband or the wife. This is a significant feature — a husband with no independent income can also claim maintenance from a wife with sufficient means. However, in practice, most claims are by wives.
2. Applies to all proceedings: Any proceeding under HMA — divorce, judicial separation, nullity, restitution, etc.
3. Temporary in nature: The maintenance is DURING THE PROCEEDINGS only. It ceases on disposal of the main proceeding.
4. Requirement of insufficiency: The applicant must have NO INDEPENDENT INCOME sufficient for support and litigation expenses.
5. 60-day target: The proviso requires courts to dispose of S.24 applications within 60 days of service of notice on the opposite party — reflecting urgency.

2.4 Conditions for Grant

For the court to grant S.24 maintenance, the following must be established:

• Pending matrimonial proceeding: There must be a main matrimonial petition pending under HMA.
• Applicant's insufficient income: The applicant has no independent income (or has inadequate income) sufficient for support and litigation.
• Respondent's capacity: The respondent has capacity to pay — sufficient income or assets.
• Reasonable amount: The amount must be reasonable having regard to both parties' income.

2.5 Factors for Determining Quantum

Courts consider multiple factors in determining S.24 maintenance:

1. Applicant's income and assets: What independent resources applicant has (salary, business income, investments, rental income).
2. Respondent's income and assets: Salary, business, investments, savings, inherited property, standard of living.
3. Lifestyle and standard of living: The applicant is entitled to maintain the standard enjoyed during marriage, as far as possible.
4. Liabilities: Both parties' debts, loans, existing maintenance obligations to others.
5. Age, health, dependents: Applicant's ability to earn, medical needs, care obligations for children or aged parents.
6. Duration of marriage: Longer marriages generally support higher maintenance; short marriages lesser.
7. Conduct of parties: Generally less relevant under S.24 than under S.25.
8. Location and cost of living: Where parties live affects reasonable maintenance.

2.6 No Specific Formula (But Rajnesh Guidelines)

HMA does not prescribe a specific formula for calculating maintenance. However, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 issued COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES covering maintenance across HMA, HAMA, S.125 CrPC, and DV Act:

• Standardised AFFIDAVIT FORMATS for disclosure of assets and liabilities by both parties.
• Criteria for calculating interim and final maintenance.
• Factors: status of parties, reasonable needs, educational/social status, individual incomes, sufficiency of income to maintain similar lifestyle.
• Guidelines for avoiding duplicative claims across multiple statutes.
• Standardisation to reduce inconsistency between courts.

2.7 Husband Claiming Maintenance from Wife

S.24 is explicitly gender-neutral. A husband with no independent income can claim maintenance from a wife with sufficient means. Though unusual in practice, such cases do occur:

• Where wife has substantial income (inherited wealth, successful career, business).
• Where husband has lost employment or is disabled.
• Where role-reversal arrangements existed during marriage.

Jasbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (2003): Upheld the gender-neutral application of S.24. A husband without independent means can seek maintenance from financially capable wife.

2.8 Landmark Cases on Section 24

⚖️ Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112

Ratio: Supreme Court laid down important principles for S.24 applications: (1) Court must consider applicant's own income and respondent's income; (2) Maintenance must enable applicant to maintain reasonable lifestyle; (3) Applications should be decided promptly — 60-day target in proviso reflects urgency; (4) Interim maintenance is necessary to prevent hardship during litigation.

⚖️ Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7

Ratio: Supreme Court held that in calculating S.24 maintenance, the wife's capacity to earn and her actual earning are distinct. Mere capacity to earn does not disentitle her; actual earnings (or lack thereof) at the relevant time are what matter.

⚖️ Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316

Ratio: Supreme Court on maintenance principles: Courts should take pragmatic approach. Interim maintenance must be decided quickly to prevent injustice. Quantum should be reasonable based on respondent's income and applicant's needs.

⚖️ Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324

Ratio: LANDMARK decision establishing COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES for maintenance across all statutes (HMA S.24, S.25; HAMA S.18; S.125 CrPC; DV Act). Key features: (1) Standardised affidavit formats for income/asset disclosure; (2) Factors for calculating maintenance — income, needs, education, standard of living; (3) Rules to avoid overlapping claims; (4) Prompt disposal norms; (5) Interest on arrears. This is the most important recent case on maintenance quantum calculation.

⚖️ Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200

Ratio: Supreme Court recommended that 25% of respondent's net income should be reasonable maintenance in appropriate cases. Though not a strict rule, this percentage provides useful benchmark. Courts apply this as one factor — not mechanical formula.

3. SECTION 25 — PERMANENT ALIMONY AND MAINTENANCE

3.1 Text of Section 25

Section 25 HMA provides:

S.25(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 respondent's 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.

S.25(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.

S.25(3): If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried 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.

3.2 Nature and Scope of S.25

Section 25 provides for PERMANENT alimony and maintenance:

1. Available with any decree: Court can order permanent alimony 'at the time of passing any decree' under HMA — divorce, judicial separation, nullity, restitution.
2. Or subsequent: Or 'at any time subsequent thereto' — even if not ordered at the time of decree, a party can later apply.
3. Gender-neutral: Available to wife or husband.
4. Two forms: Gross sum (lump sum) OR monthly/periodical payments.
5. Maximum term: For the LIFE of the applicant (not respondent's life).
6. Security: Payment can be SECURED by charge on respondent's immovable property.

3.3 Factors Under S.25(1)

Section 25 expressly lists factors the court must consider:

1. Respondent's income and property: Salary, business income, investments, assets, savings, inherited property.
2. Applicant's income and property: Applicant's own financial resources.
3. Conduct of parties: Unlike S.24 (where conduct is less relevant), S.25 expressly considers conduct. A spouse's matrimonial misconduct may reduce or bar permanent alimony.
4. Other circumstances of the case: Duration of marriage, status and position, cost of living, obligations to children or aged parents, health, age.

3.4 Lump Sum vs. Periodic Payments

3.5 Variation and Rescission — S.25(2) and S.25(3)

3.5.1 Variation under S.25(2)

Either party can apply to VARY, MODIFY, or RESCIND the order if there is a CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES:

• Applicant's improved fortune: If applicant gets remunerative employment, substantial inheritance, or other wealth — maintenance may be reduced.
• Respondent's deteriorating fortune: Loss of job, business failure, serious illness, old age — may warrant reduction.
• Applicant's increased need: Illness, disability, additional dependents — may warrant increase.
• Respondent's improved fortune: Significant career advancement, inheritance — may warrant increase.
• Inflation: Long-term periodic orders may need adjustment for inflation.

3.5.2 Rescission under S.25(3)

The court can VARY, MODIFY or RESCIND the order if the benefiting party:

1. Remarries: Applies to both men and women — remarriage terminates maintenance obligation.
2. Wife has not remained chaste: A wife whose chastity is compromised (without remarriage) may lose maintenance. This provision has been criticised as gender-discriminatory.
3. Husband has sexual intercourse outside wedlock: The 1976 Amendment added this parallel provision for husbands. A husband having extramarital relations can lose maintenance.

3.6 Application and Procedure

• Application must be made by the entitled spouse.
• Can be at time of decree or any time subsequent.
• Court examines financial position of both parties.
• Both parties file affidavits disclosing income, assets, liabilities.
• Court considers all S.25(1) factors.
• Order can be enforced like a civil decree.

3.7 Effect of Remarriage on S.25 Maintenance

3.7.1 Applicant's Remarriage

If the PERSON RECEIVING maintenance remarries, the maintenance obligation generally terminates. This applies to both ex-wife and ex-husband. The logic: the new spouse has legal obligation to maintain.

3.7.2 Payor's Remarriage

The PAYOR'S remarriage does NOT automatically terminate maintenance. However, it may be considered in variation applications — the payor's new financial obligations are relevant.

3.8 Landmark Cases on Section 25

⚖️ Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316

Ratio: Supreme Court held that under S.25, courts should consider not just the respondent's income but also their capacity to earn. A respondent cannot deliberately reduce income to escape maintenance. The standard is 'reasonable' maintenance based on both parties' circumstances.

⚖️ Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2015) 13 SCC 260

Ratio: Supreme Court on the distinction between S.24 interim and S.25 permanent maintenance: S.24 provides temporary relief during proceedings; S.25 provides long-term financial security post-decree. Courts must consider different factors for each. Rajnesh v. Neha later systematised this further.

⚖️ Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak (2008) 9 SCC 632

Ratio: Supreme Court held that payment of maintenance under S.125 CrPC does not bar or reduce entitlement under S.25 HMA. However, courts should consider existing payments to avoid duplication. Each statute has its own scheme but courts should ensure just overall outcome.

⚖️ Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta (1995) 5 SCC 299

Ratio: Supreme Court held that a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under S.25 even after divorce — the decree of divorce does not extinguish maintenance rights. S.25 expressly permits application at the time of decree or any time thereafter.

⚖️ Shailendra Shukla v. Soma Shukla (2008) 3 SCC 574

Ratio: On variation under S.25(2). Courts should liberally consider variation applications where circumstances have genuinely changed. Mere passage of time alone is not sufficient — specific material change required.

⚖️ Smt. Sadhana Rani Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma AIR 2003 Del 288

Ratio: On S.25(3) rescission. Wife's involvement in adultery led to rescission of maintenance. Courts carefully examine evidence — proof of unchastity or extramarital relationship must be clear, not merely alleged.

⚖️ Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200

Ratio: Supreme Court's indicative norm — 25% of respondent's net income as maintenance where appropriate. Not a strict rule but helpful benchmark. Courts apply this as factor among others.

⚖️ Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324

Ratio: SUPREME LANDMARK — comprehensive guidelines applicable to S.25 and all other maintenance statutes. Standardised affidavit formats, calculation criteria, avoidance of duplication, prompt disposal. This is the DEFINITIVE modern case on maintenance.

4. INTERACTION WITH OTHER MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS

4.1 Maintenance under Multiple Statutes

4.2 Post-Rajnesh Rules

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) provided crucial guidance:

1. Disclosure: Standardised affidavit of assets and liabilities by both parties — prevents concealment.
2. Avoid duplication: Courts must consider maintenance awarded under other statutes to avoid multiple payments for same period.
3. Uniform criteria: Same factors for calculating maintenance across statutes.
4. Prompt disposal: Interim maintenance applications to be disposed within 4-6 months.
5. Arrears: Maintenance can be awarded from the date of application with reasonable interest.

4.3 Choice of Remedy

The wife may choose which provision to invoke:

• During pending HMA proceedings: S.24 is appropriate.
• Where no matrimonial proceeding but needs maintenance: S.18 HAMA or S.125 CrPC are options.
• Fast relief needed: S.125 CrPC (speedy summary procedure) or DV Act often preferred.
• Post-divorce: S.25 HMA provides permanent alimony.
• Combined strategy: Interim under S.24 + permanent under S.25 + DV Act monetary relief, coordinated to avoid overlap.

5. QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE — KEY FACTORS

5.1 Positive Factors (Increase Maintenance)

• Long duration of marriage.
• High standard of living during marriage.
• Respondent's high income.
• Applicant's inability to earn (health, age, childcare).
• Applicant's significant contribution to marriage (homemaking, raising children).
• Dependents on applicant (children, aged parents).
• Medical needs of applicant.
• Inflation (for long-term orders).

5.2 Negative Factors (Decrease Maintenance)

• Applicant's adultery or matrimonial misconduct.
• Applicant's substantial independent income.
• Short duration of marriage.
• Respondent's genuine financial difficulties.
• Applicant's capability to earn but choice not to.
• Applicant's remarriage.
• Unchastity of wife (under S.25(3)).

5.3 Rajnesh v. Neha Key Criteria

The Supreme Court emphasised these specific criteria:

1. Status of parties, social/educational background.
2. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.
3. Whether wife is qualified, working, or can work — actual earning vs. capacity.
4. Independent income and assets of wife.
5. Standard of living enjoyed during marriage.
6. Any serious disability, illness requiring constant medical care.
7. Whether wife has been rendered destitute by divorce.
8. Reasonable expenses for children's education and upbringing.
9. Sufficient means of husband and his liabilities.
10. Ability to pay and standard of living husband maintains.

6. PRACTICAL ISSUES

6.1 Enforcement

Maintenance orders can be enforced through:

• Execution under CPC — attachment of property, salary, bank accounts.
• Warrants of attachment under S.125 CrPC.
• Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience.
• Interest on arrears (post-Rajnesh).
• Recovery as land revenue arrears under some state rules.

6.2 Taxation

Income tax treatment:

• Maintenance received by spouse is generally tax-free in hands of recipient.
• Maintenance paid is not deductible from income of payor (personal expense).
• Lump sum alimony receives different tax treatment than periodic.
• Consult tax advisor for specific cases.

6.3 Maintenance for Children

Though S.24 and S.25 deal with spousal maintenance, courts often consider children's needs as part of reasonable maintenance. S.26 HMA specifically deals with custody and maintenance of children during proceedings. Independent provisions under HAMA (S.20) provide for maintenance of children separately.

7. CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES

7.1 Gender and Maintenance

• Though gender-neutral, maintenance has been primarily a women's remedy reflecting economic realities.
• Men's increasing ability to claim maintenance reflects changing gender dynamics.
• Women's economic empowerment may reduce quantum but recognises their reasonable expectations from marriage.

7.2 Unchastity Clause Criticism

S.25(3)'s 'unchastity' provision for wife has been criticised:

• Seemingly discriminatory — though 1976 Amendment added parallel provision for husband.
• Presupposes rigid morality standards.
• Difficult to prove without invading privacy.
• Reform proposals suggest removing this ground.

7.3 Duplication Across Statutes

Multiple maintenance statutes create complexity:

• Risk of duplicate orders for same period.
• Rajnesh guidelines try to address through coordinated approach.
• Proposals for uniform civil code on maintenance.

8. IMPORTANT POINTS FOR EXAM REVISION

1. Section 24 — Maintenance Pendente Lite: During pending proceedings + litigation expenses. Gender-neutral. 60-day disposal target.
2. Section 25 — Permanent Alimony: At or after decree. For life of applicant. Lump sum or periodic.
3. Gender-neutral: Both S.24 and S.25 available to husband or wife.
4. Factors under S.25(1): Both parties' income/property, conduct, other circumstances.
5. Variation under S.25(2): Either party, change of circumstances.
6. Rescission under S.25(3): Remarriage of applicant; wife's unchastity; husband's extramarital affair.
7. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021): LANDMARK guidelines — standardised affidavits, criteria, avoidance of duplication, prompt disposal.
8. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (2017): 25% of respondent's net income as indicative maintenance.
9. Interaction with other statutes: Can be claimed alongside S.18 HAMA, S.125 CrPC, DV Act — but coordinated to avoid duplication.
10. Enforcement: Through CPC execution, attachment, warrants, contempt.

🧠 MNEMONIC: Maintenance — Quick Facts

S.24 = Interim (during proceedings). S.25 = Permanent (at/after decree). S.25(2) = Variation. S.25(3) = Rescission (remarriage/unchastity/infidelity). Rajnesh (2021) = Landmark guidelines.

🧠 MNEMONIC: S.25(1) Factors — IRCO

Income and property of both, Respondent's means, Conduct of parties, Other circumstances. I-R-C-O.

🎯 EXAM TIP

Top-tested points: (1) S.24 is INTERIM, S.25 is PERMANENT; (2) Both are GENDER-NEUTRAL; (3) S.25(3) — remarriage, unchastity, infidelity lead to rescission; (4) Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) — comprehensive guidelines; (5) 25% indicative norm per Kalyan Dey Chowdhury; (6) S.24 has 60-day disposal target; (7) Interaction with S.125 CrPC — no bar but avoid duplication.

✨ Essay Strategy

For essay on alimony and maintenance: (1) Introduction — financial security in matrimonial matters; (2) S.24 text and analysis — interim nature, conditions, factors; (3) S.25 text and analysis — permanent, factors, variation, rescission; (4) Distinction between S.24 and S.25; (5) Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) guidelines; (6) Interaction with S.125 CrPC, HAMA, DV Act; (7) Enforcement and practical issues; (8) Critical evaluation — gender aspects, reform proposals.

9. PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q1: Discuss the provisions for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA. What factors do courts consider in determining the quantum?

Q2: Explain Section 25 HMA on permanent alimony and maintenance. Distinguish between lump sum and periodic maintenance.

Q3: Under what circumstances can a maintenance order under Section 25 be varied or rescinded? Discuss with reference to Section 25(2) and (3).

Q4: Analyse the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021). What guidelines did the Court issue for maintenance across various statutes?

Q5: A divorced wife claims maintenance under Section 25 HMA and also under Section 125 CrPC. Can she succeed under both? How do courts coordinate maintenance under different statutes?

Q6: Can a husband claim maintenance from his wife? Under what circumstances would such a claim succeed?

Q7: X obtains divorce from Y. The court orders Y to pay X monthly maintenance of Rs 50,000. After 3 years, X starts earning substantially. Y applies for variation of the order. Discuss the legal position.