THE LEGAL BRIDGE

thelegalbridge.in

Amount of Maintenance & Alteration — S.23, S.25

Topic 46 | Module 4: HAMA, 1956 | The Legal Bridge

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

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

Amount of Maintenance & Alteration — Sections 23 and 25 HAMA

Relevant Provisions: Sections 23, 25 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Priority: MEDIUM | Exam Relevance: DJS / PCS-J

1. Introduction

Sections 23 and 25 HAMA address two critical practical questions: HOW MUCH maintenance should be awarded (S.23), and CAN the amount be CHANGED after the initial order (S.25). These provisions ensure that maintenance is fair, adequate, and responsive to changing circumstances. The quantum of maintenance is not left to arbitrary determination — S.23 prescribes specific factors that courts must consider. Section 25 recognises that circumstances change over time and allows alteration of maintenance amounts when material changes occur.

The Supreme Court's comprehensive guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) have significantly shaped the practical application of these provisions. The Court mandated income/expense affidavits, established the principle of adjusting overlapping claims, and provided a structured framework for maintenance computation applicable across all statutes.

2. TEXT OF SECTION 23

"(1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so, the court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be.

(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to the wife, children, aged or infirm parents under this Act, regard shall be had to—

(a) the position and status of the parties;

(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;

(c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so;

(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any other source;

(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act."

3. FACTORS FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT — S.23(2)

3.1 Position and Status of Parties — S.23(2)(a)

The court considers the social and economic position of both the claimant and the person liable. A wife accustomed to a high standard of living is entitled to maintenance commensurate with that standard. The obligation is not merely to provide subsistence but to maintain the claimant at a level appropriate to the family's status.

3.2 Reasonable Wants of Claimant — S.23(2)(b)

The claimant's REASONABLE needs — food, clothing, residence, education (for children), medical treatment, and other necessities. The emphasis is on 'reasonable' — not extravagant or wasteful, but adequate for a dignified life.

3.3 Justification for Separate Living — S.23(2)(c)

If the wife is living separately, the court examines whether her separation is JUSTIFIED (under S.18(2) grounds). If justified, full maintenance. If unjustified, the court may reduce or deny maintenance.

3.4 Claimant's Own Resources — S.23(2)(d)

The court considers the claimant's own property, income from property, earnings from employment, or any other source. If the claimant has independent means, the maintenance amount is adjusted. A self-sufficient claimant may receive less or no maintenance.

3.5 Number of Dependants — S.23(2)(e)

The total number of persons entitled to maintenance from the same person is relevant. If the husband must maintain his wife, children, and parents, the individual amounts are adjusted to the overall capacity.

4. SECTION 23(3) — FACTORS FOR DEPENDANTS' MAINTENANCE

For maintenance of dependants under S.22 (from the estate of a deceased), the court considers:

The net value of the estate after payment of debts (S.26 priority).
Any share the dependant has already received by devolution.
The number and nature of dependants.
The reasonable wants of each dependant.
The past standard of living.

5. SECTION 25 — ALTERATION OF MAINTENANCE

"The amount of maintenance, whether fixed by a decree of court or by agreement, either before or after the commencement of this Act, may be altered subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration."

5.1 Key Features

Both court-ordered and agreed maintenance: Can be altered regardless of whether originally fixed by court decree or mutual agreement.
Material change in circumstances: The trigger for alteration. Not every change justifies alteration — the change must be MATERIAL and RELEVANT.
Can increase or decrease: The alteration can go either way — increasing or reducing the amount.
Prospective or retrospective: Courts generally make alteration prospective, but can grant arrears in appropriate cases.

5.2 Examples of Material Change

Increase justified: Inflation, increased cost of living, children's educational expenses growing, claimant developing medical condition, obligor's income increasing substantially.
Decrease justified: Obligor's income declining, claimant becoming self-sufficient, claimant remarrying (for widow), claimant receiving inheritance or property.

6. RAJNESH v. NEHA GUIDELINES (2021)

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 issued COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES applicable to maintenance under ALL statutes:

Mandatory affidavits: Both parties must file income and expense affidavits in prescribed format.
Disclosure of all claims: The claimant must disclose all maintenance claims filed under different statutes.
Overlapping claims adjusted: Courts must adjust amounts to prevent double recovery.
Interim maintenance: Should be granted within a reasonable time.
Enforcement: Courts must ensure compliance with maintenance orders.
Date from which maintenance runs: Generally from the date of filing the application.

7. BENCHMARK QUANTUM

While no rigid formula exists, some judicial benchmarks have emerged:

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (2017): Suggested 25% of husband's net income as reasonable benchmark for wife's maintenance.
Not binding: This is a guideline, not a rule. Individual circumstances vary.
Factors override formula: The S.23(2) factors must be individually assessed.

8. LANDMARK CASES

⚖️ Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324

Ratio: DEFINITIVE modern authority on maintenance computation across all statutes. Mandatory affidavits, disclosure of overlapping claims, adjustment principle. Must be cited in every maintenance answer.

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

Ratio: 25% of husband's net income as reasonable benchmark for wife's maintenance. Not rigid — individual circumstances matter.

⚖️ Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan AIR 1993 SC 1634

Ratio: Supreme Court held that permanent alimony under HMA S.25 must consider all circumstances. No mathematical formula. Court must do justice on the facts.

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

Ratio: Wife entitled to maintenance commensurate with husband's status. Maintenance is not charity — it is a right incident to marriage.

9. IMPORTANT POINTS FOR EXAM REVISION

S.23(2) — Five factors: Position/status, reasonable wants, justification for separation, claimant's resources, number of dependants.
S.25 — Alteration: Material change in circumstances justifies increase or decrease.
Both court-ordered and agreed: S.25 applies to both.
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021): Mandatory affidavits + disclosure + adjustment of overlapping claims.
25% benchmark: Kalyan Dey Chowdhury — guideline, not rule.
S.26 — Debts priority: Debts paid before maintenance from estate.
S.27 — Charge: Maintenance can be made charge on property.
S.28 — Transfer effect: Transfer of property does not affect maintenance rights.

🧠 MNEMONIC: S.23(2) Factors — 'PRJCN'

Position/status, Reasonable wants, Justification for separation, Claimant's resources, Number of dependants. P-R-J-C-N.

🎯 EXAM TIP

For maintenance quantum questions: (1) Quote S.23(2) five factors; (2) Cite Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines; (3) Mention 25% benchmark (Kalyan Dey) as guideline not rule; (4) S.25 alteration on material change; (5) Both increase and decrease possible.

✨ Essay Strategy

For amount/alteration essay: (1) S.23(2) five factors with analysis; (2) S.23(3) for dependants; (3) S.25 alteration mechanism; (4) Material change examples; (5) Rajnesh v. Neha comprehensive guidelines; (6) 25% benchmark; (7) S.26-28 supplementary provisions; (8) Cases.

10. PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q1: Discuss the factors to be considered in determining the amount of maintenance under Section 23 HAMA.

Q2: Can the amount of maintenance be altered after it has been fixed? Discuss Section 25 HAMA.

Q3: A wife earning Rs 30,000/month claims maintenance from her husband earning Rs 2 lakh/month. What factors will the court consider?

Q4: Discuss the Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) guidelines on maintenance computation. How do they affect S.23?

Q5: What is the '25% benchmark' for maintenance? Is it a binding rule? Discuss.

Q6: A maintenance order was passed 10 years ago. The obligor's income has tripled. Can the amount be altered?