In India, maintenance from a husband remains one of the most debated aspects of matrimonial law, raising critical questions about financial dependency, gender equality, and the true intent behind spousal support provisions. It calls for a careful judicial assessment of whether the duty to provide maintenance stems purely from the marital bond or must be weighed against the earning capacity and self-reliance of the claimant spouse. Courts routinely evaluate the financial positions of both parties, the standard of living during the marriage, and principles of equity and fairness before deciding such claims.
Maintenance provisions under statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], and other personal laws are rooted in the principle of ensuring that a spouse who is unable to support themselves is not left destitute during or after matrimonial proceedings. However, in cases where the wife is financially secure or capable of earning, courts have been called upon to decide whether such maintenance claims are justified.
The recent Delhi High Court judgment in Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023, decided on 4 August 2025) offers important judicial guidance on this issue. The court dismissed the maintenance claim of a financially independent wife, citing her means of sustenance and the husband’s precarious financial condition. This article analyses the legal framework, precedents, and reasoning behind such decisions.
Statutory Framework Governing Maintenance
1. Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 24 empowers the court to grant maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance) and litigation expenses to either spouse during matrimonial proceedings if they lack independent income sufficient for support. The key conditions are:
- The applicant must lack sufficient independent income.
- Maintenance is only for the duration of proceedings.
- The court considers the income, property, and circumstances of both parties.
2. Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25 deals with permanent alimony after matrimonial proceedings are concluded. The court may grant it to either spouse considering their income, property, and conduct.
3. Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) provides a quick remedy for wives (including divorced wives) who are unable to maintain themselves. However, Section 125(4) denies maintenance to a wife living in adultery, refusing to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or living separately by mutual consent.
Delhi High Court’s Ruling in Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma
Facts in Brief
- Marriage: 1978; two sons born in 1980 and 1986.
- Separation: Since 1987.
- Appellant-wife: Retired Senior Teacher (2014), pension ₹2,000/month, alleged heavy medical expenses.
- Respondent-husband: Retired in 2017, no pension due to company insolvency, heavily indebted.
- Claim: Wife sought ₹60,000/month as interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA.
- Family Court: Dismissed claim, holding she had sufficient income and support.
- High Court: Upheld dismissal.
Arguments For and Against Granting Maintenance to a Financially Independent Wife
In Favour of Granting Maintenance:
Right to the Same Standard of Living: Marriage creates a legitimate expectation that the wife will live at par with the husband’s lifestyle, even after separation.
Not Just About Survival: Maintenance is not merely subsistence but maintaining dignity.
Temporary Financial Setbacks: Even financially independent wives may face sudden hardships (e.g., job loss, medical emergencies).
Against Granting Maintenance:
Self-Sufficiency: If the wife can maintain herself, imposing an additional burden on the husband is unjust, especially when he is in financial distress.
Misuse of Law: Potential for unjust enrichment and harassment of the husband.
Judicial Precedents: Courts have held that financial independence negates the need for maintenance (e.g., Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100).
Court’s Reasoning
Purpose of Section 24 HMA
- To ensure that a spouse genuinely unable to maintain themselves can prosecute or defend matrimonial proceedings without financial hardship.
- Not an automatic entitlement; requires proof of insufficient means.
Financial Independence of the Wife
- Highly qualified, retired from a well-paying job.
- Allegedly earning ₹40,000/month from private tuition.
- Residing with two adult, earning sons.
- Holds matured LIC policies.
Husband’s Financial Condition
- Over 70 years old, no source of income, burdened with heavy debts.
- Dependent on borrowed money for sustenance.
Legal Precedents Cited
- Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain (2010) 12 SCC 242 – Section 24’s object is to prevent financial handicap in litigation, not to equalise lifestyles.
- Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 – Maintenance must be reasonable, not punitive.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Laid down uniform guidelines for maintenance assessment.
- Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724) – Obligation to maintain must be balanced with paying capacity.
Finding
- Wife had adequate resources and family support.
- Husband’s financial incapacity outweighed claim.
- No evidence that the wife was unable to maintain herself.
Key Highlights of the Judgment:
Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stated:
“In view of above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance from the respondent no. 1 at this stage. With these observations, the application u/sec. 24 HMA is accordingly dismissed.…In our considered opinion, the income of the Appellant is sufficient to maintain herself, and as such, the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Appellant under Section 24 of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Legal Principles Emerging from Case Law
1. Maintenance Is Need-Based, Not Automatic
Courts have consistently held that maintenance under Section 24 HMA is granted only when the applicant lacks sufficient independent income. The word “sufficient” is key — it does not require absolute destitution but does require genuine financial hardship.
2. Financial Capacity of Both Spouses Must Be Balanced
In Manish Jain (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that the court must strike a balance between the needs of the claimant and the paying capacity of the other spouse.
3. Voluntary Separation and Section 125(4) CrPC
If a wife lives separately by mutual consent, her right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be barred. This was noted in Yashwani Verma, where the parties had lived apart for decades by mutual consent.
4. Support from Other Family Members
If the wife resides with earning children who can support her, this may be considered while determining her claim, though the legal duty of maintenance is on the husband.
5. Husband’s Illness or Lack of Income Is a Relevant Factor
In Rishi Dev Anand v. Devinder Kaur (AIR 1985 Delhi 40), the husband’s illness and lack of salary were valid reasons to deny maintenance for the relevant period.
Conclusion
The Yashwani Verma case reaffirms that maintenance is a shield against destitution, not a tool for financial windfall. The court’s approach balances compassion for genuine need with pragmatism about economic realities.
Where the wife is educated, capable, and already has independent means of income — and the husband is financially incapacitated — granting maintenance would be inequitable. Conversely, if financial independence is only on paper and the wife still struggles to maintain herself, courts may intervene in her favour.
Ultimately, each case turns on its facts, but the guiding principle remains: maintenance is justified only when the claimant genuinely lacks sufficient means for sustenance, and the payer can contribute.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams