Delhi High Court
Yashwani Verma vs Virender Verma on 4 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 21.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 04.08.2025
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 & CM APPL. 30959/2023 (for
delay)
YASHWANI VERMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
VIRENDER VERMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Himanshu, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL. 30959/2023 (for condonation of delay)
1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of
delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal.
2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is
condoned.
3. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 1 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
MAT. APP. (F.C) NO.174/2023
4. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Order dated
08.02.20231 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts,
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi2 in HMA No. 290/2021, titled
as “Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma & Anr.“, whereby the
application filed by Appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 19553, seeking maintenance for herself, came to be
dismissed.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
5. The facts germane leading up to the institution of the present
Appeal are as follows:
I. The matrimonial alliance between the Appellant and the
Respondent was solemnised on 22.03.1978 at 4, Cavalry Lines,
The Mall, New Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites and
sacraments. Subsequently, two sons were born out of the said
wedlock, namely Himavan Verma and Vikas Verma, born on
24.11.1980 and 11.05.1986, respectively.
II. The Appellant, aged more than 70 years, is a qualified
individual, possessing significant academic qualifications. She
was employed as a Senior Teacher at St. Xavier’s Senior
Secondary School, New Delhi, and superannuated from service
in July 2014. Prior to her retirement, she was drawing a
monthly salary of ₹64,150/-, and is presently in receipt of a
1
Impugned Order
2
Family Court
3
Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 2 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
pension of approximately ₹2,000/- per month. It stands placed
on record that the Appellant is residing with her two sons, both
of whom are majors and gainfully employed.
III. The Respondent, aged around 73 years, was formerly employed
with Reliance Communication, where he served until his
retirement in the year 2017. It is stated that, owing to the
financial collapse and insolvency of the said company, he was
deprived of his retiral benefits, including pension and final
settlement dues. The Respondent contends that he is
unemployed, and is devoid of any independent source of
income.
IV. The parties began residing separately in the year 1987,
following a prolonged period marked by mutual discord.
Subsequently, owing to continued differences, the Appellant
and Respondent agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual
consent, and a joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of
the Act was filed in the year 2003. However, the Appellant later
withdrew her consent, and the proceedings did not culminate in
a decree of divorce.
V. A perusal of the present Appeal suggests that the Appellant,
aggrieved by the Respondent’s purported act of solemnizing a
second marriage during the subsistence of their lawful
matrimonial alliance, instituted a petition under Section 17 of
the Act bearing HMA No. 290/2021 on 24.02.2021, seeking a
declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by
the Respondent is null and void ab initio, being in contravention
of the statutory mandate against bigamy enshrined under the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 3 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
Act. The said petition remains pending adjudication before the
Ld. Family Court.
VI. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the Appellant
preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act, praying
for interim maintenance in the quantum of ₹60,000/- per month,
and litigation expenses amounting to ₹1,00,000/-.
VII. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.02.2023, the Family Court,
dismissed the Appellant’s application under Section 24 of the
Act, seeking interim maintenance, after taking note of the
financial means of both parties and the surrounding
circumstances and held as follows:
“There are rival contentions made by the parties
regarding their act and conduct and also about
financial status of each other. A final opinion about the
rival contentions can be made only with the help of
evidence and at this interim stage, a prima-facie view
is to be made on the basis of material available on
record at this stage. Perusal of record shows that both
the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 1 are aged
around 70 years. Though both of them have claimed
that they do not have any income but the documents
filed by them in form of bank statement and ITR shows
that both of them have income as there are several
heavy credit and debit entries in their bank accounts.
Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her sons who
are major and both are earning. The purpose of section
24 HMA is to provide maintenance, pendente lite and
expenses of proceedings to the litigating spouse either
wife or husband, if she/he has no independent/sufficient
income to maintain herself/himself during pendency of
the proceedings. If the material available on record is
analyzed, it can be concluded that the petitioner has
sufficient income to maintain herself. Moreover, it is
also clear from the record that parties are living
separately for several years and submissions of Ld.
Counsel for respondent is found to be forceful that they
are living separately with mutual consent. In that case
the claim qua maintenance comes under doubt by
virtue of section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. In view of above
discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitledSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 4 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
to any maintenance from the respondent no. 1 at this
stage. With these observations, the application u/sec.
24 HMA is accordingly dismissed.”
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
6. The Appellant avers that following her retirement from the
position of Senior School Teacher in July 2014, she has been
compelled to contend with the inevitable consequences of advancing
age, including a steady decline in health and an ever-increasing
burden of medical expenses, requiring continuous treatment, care, and
financial outlay.
7. The Appellant further contends that, post-retirement, she is not
in receipt of any substantial or sustainable source of income that
would enable her to maintain herself with dignity and in a manner
befitting her previous standard of living. It is thus submitted that, in
the absence of adequate financial means, she is entitled to claim
interim maintenance and litigation expenses from the Respondent, in
accordance with the statutory mandate of Section 24 of the Act.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
8. Per contra, the Respondent filed a detailed reply, opposing the
reliefs sought by the Appellant. The respondent contended, inter alia,
that the Appellant is a well-educated woman, armed with multiple
academic qualifications including B.A. (Hons.), M.A., B.Ed., M.Ed.,
and M.Phil., and that she had retired from her service.
9. It was further submitted that the Appellant continues to earn
approximately ₹40,000/- per month through private tuitions, and is
further drawing a monthly pension of ₹2,000/-, resides in a self-
acquired residential property, and has maturity proceeds from a Life
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 5 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
Insurance Corporation4 policy, thereby securing a steady stream of
income. On these premises, the Respondent argued that the Appellant
is financially independent and in no manner indigent or dependent.
10. Conversely, the Respondent averred that he has been
unemployed since 2017, is devoid of any regular income or fixed
assets, and is compelled to reside with his brother for basic
sustenance. Moreover, the Respondent, in his reply to the appeal, has
brought on record that he remains burdened by significant outstanding
debts, having borrowed a sum of ₹10,00,000/- from his brother and
₹13,00,000/- from a friend, solely to meet his subsistence needs and to
address pressing medical exigencies. It is further submitted that the
Respondent was constrained to discharge substantial liabilities arising
out of accumulated credit card dues, which had accrued solely on
account of prolonged financial hardship and the absence of any
regular income. The Respondent has additionally alleged that the
Appellant is seeking to unjustly profiteer from the judicial process by
raising inflated and unfounded claims, devoid of any substantiating
basis.
ANALYSIS:
11. We have considered the submissions made by the Learned
Counsels for the parties and have perused the material on record
including the income affidavits.
12. The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains
to the rejection of the claim for maintenance pendente lite and
expenses of proceedings made by the Appellant under Section 24 of
the Act.
4
LIC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 6 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
13. Before embarking upon the merits of the appeal, it is apposite to
examine the legislative intent underlying Section 24 of the Act. The
primary object of this provision is to ensure that in matrimonial
proceedings, the spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain
themselves or to meet the expenses of the proceedings is not placed at
a procedural disadvantage. The law ensures that nobody is disabled
from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or
lack of funds. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal
Jain5.
14. The invocation of Section 24 is not to be construed as an
automatic entitlement. The discretion conferred upon the Court under
this provision is wide, and must be exercised judiciously, keeping in
view the financial standing, independent income, and overall
circumstances of both parties. The law in this regard has been
succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev
Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur6, and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain7.
15. Section 24 is to ensure basic sustenance during litigation, not to
impose undue financial burden or to match the lifestyle of the other
spouse. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that Section 24 is not intended
to act as a substitute for maintenance obligations under personal law.
Rather, it is confined to the grant of pendente lite maintenance and
expenses of litigation in the course of matrimonial proceedings.
Importantly, the statute contemplates applications from either spouse,
and in no manner exempts the applicant from demonstrating genuine
financial distress.
5
(2010) 12 SCC 242.
6
2025 INSC 197.
7
(2017) 15 SCC 801.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 7 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
16. The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the
appellant is a highly qualified individual, and had retired as a Senior
Teacher in July 2014. The Respondent also submits that the appellant
is residing with her two adult sons, both of whom are employed and
earning well, and are thus in a position to support her financially.
17. While conferring maintenance, the financial capacity of the
husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own
maintenance, and liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to
be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of
the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of
living. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (supra),
and Rajnesh v. Neha.8
18. The aforesaid principle of law has been reaffirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod
Patel9, wherein, albeit in the context of permanent alimony, the
Hon’ble Court observed that while it is indeed the obligation of the
husband to maintain his wife and children, the same must be assessed
in light of his financial capacity and ability to pay. The Court further
emphasised the necessity of striking a just balance between the rights
and interests of both parties in determining such claims.
19. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Learned Single
Judge of this Court in Rishi Dev Anand v. Devinder Kaur10, wherein
the husband’s prolonged illness and lack of salary during the relevant
period were duly taken into account while deciding the question of
8
(2021) 2 SCC 324.
9
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724.
10
AIR 1985 DELHI 40.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 8 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
maintenance. The Court therein held that when the husband was
without any income due to medical incapacity, and simultaneously
bearing the responsibility of maintaining his daughter, it would be
unjust to saddle him with maintenance liability for that period. Such
consideration of financial incapacity and bona fide hardship has also
guided the approach of this Court in the present matter.
20. This Court notes the submission advanced on behalf of
Respondent, who is stated to be more than 70 years of age, rendering
him unfit for any gainful employment. It is further brought on record
that the Respondent was previously employed with Reliance
Communication till 2017; however, owing to the company’s financial
collapse and subsequent insolvency proceedings, he was deprived of
all retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues. In
addition, as evident from the reply to the appeal filed by the
Respondent before this Court, it emerges that the Respondent has had
to borrow substantial sums – ₹10,00,000/- from his brother and
₹13,00,000/- from a friend, Ms. Nazneen – for the purpose of meeting
his basic living expenses. These liabilities, incurred solely for
sustenance, remain outstanding and unpaid, owing to the
Respondent’s continuing financial incapacity.
21. In the present case, it is clear that the Respondent’s financial
frailty, compounded by his advanced age, and loss of post-retirement
entitlements, weighs significantly against imposing any further
pecuniary obligation upon him.
22. The record reflects that the Appellant has been residing
separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this
extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the
Courts or assistance even. In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 9 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant
upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and
the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.
23. It stands placed on record that the Appellant is in possession of
matured LIC policies in her name. The Appellant is also residing with
her two sons, both of whom appear to be gainfully employed. Though
there appears to be some whatsapp chats of the year 2020 and 2021
where one of the sons was asking for money, the income affidavit of
the appellant suggests that both sons are having independent income.
It was also stated by the counsel that both sons are independently
earning. In light of these facts, it appears that the Appellant has
adequate financial resources and support systems available to her.
24. The Appellant’s claim that she is sustaining herself on
donations from her former students does not appear to be supported by
any evidence. The fact that there are various sums that are deposited
by unrelated persons, without necessary proof in support, cuts no ice
in favour of either of the parties. However, it clearly leads us to
conclude that the Appellant has some source of income to enable her
to take care of herself.
25. In light of the above authoritative pronouncements and in the
absence of any persuasive evidence justifying the Appellant’s claim of
the interim maintenance, this Court is of the considered view that the
Respondent should not be burdened with the obligation to provide
interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical
and emotional conditions are visibly strained.
26. In our considered opinion, the income of the Appellant is
sufficient to maintain herself, and as such, the learned Family Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 10 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09
has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Appellant under
Section 24 of the Act.
27. We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by
the learned Family Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is made clear that observations made in this Order do not
tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case that
is pending before the learned Family Court.
ANIL KSHETARPAL,
(JUDGE)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 04, 2025/rk/ds/kr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 Page 11 of 11
Signing Date:05.08.2025
19:35:09