This article is written by R Sai Gayatri, and further updated by Shweta Singh. This article deals with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and elaborates on its meaning, objectives, and interpretation. In addition to this, the article also discusses the scope and applicability of this section with the help of various decided case laws.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Maintenance is not just a legal right but a human right as well. The purpose of granting maintenance to the affected spouse is to enable them to live a dignified life and represent themselves in legal proceedings, thereby giving them equal protection of the law as outlined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The provision for maintenance also fulfils the requirement envisaged under Article 39 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines that both men and women have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘HMA, 1955’) talks about the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Here, the term maintenance refers to the provision of basic needs to a dependent spouse and ‘pendente lite’ is a Latin term that means “while a suit is pending” or “while litigation continues”. Thus, it can be understood that ‘maintenance pendente lite’ refers to the provision of providing expenses and financial support to the spouse (either wife or husband) while a suit is pending. Let us know more about Section 24 of the HMA, 1955.
Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, states that in any proceeding under the HMA, 1955, if a court believes that either the husband or the wife has no source of independent income to provide for his or her support and the required expenses of the proceedings then the court may, on the application of such dependent spouse, order the other spouse to pay:
- The expenses of the proceedings,
- The monthly sum during such proceedings as the court finds reasonable with regard to the income of both the spouses.
In the case of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a similar provision has been made under Section 36 with the key differentiation that under this Act, the alimony pendente lite (alimony during the pendency of the suit) can only be claimed by the wife; it does not apply to the husband. Further, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, also talks about the provision of interim maintenance to the wife by the husband.
The provision of interim maintenance under Section 24 applies to the cases of restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), judicial separation (Section 10), void marriages (Section 11), voidable marriages (Section 12), divorce (Section 13), and mutual divorce (Section 13B). Either the husband or the wife may claim interim maintenance for himself or herself or their child, irrespective of the fact as to which party started the proceedings. The primary condition for the grant of interim maintenance is that one party to the proceeding does not have sufficient independent income for their support and the required expenses of the proceedings. Interim maintenance is paid from the date the petition is filed until the suit is dismissed or a decree is passed. This type of maintenance is meant to cover the immediate needs of the petitioner. Maintenance pendente lite is specifically for litigation expenses. By virtue of Section 24, the court can exercise the power conferred upon it even if the respondent denies the factum of marriage.
In the case of Smt. Sushila Viresh Chhadva vs. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1995), the Family Court rejected the application made by the wife regarding the grant of interim maintenance and legal expenses on the ground that the husband has filled for the nullity of marriage. The Supreme Court held that the order made by the family court was legally unsustainable. The Family Court had erroneously taken the view that interim aliment was not available to the wife as the husband had sought an annulment of the marriage. The wife’s right to maintenance was dependent on the status of her marriage. Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, which deals with maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, was applicable to all the proceedings under the HMA, 1955. This encompasses suits for restoration of conjugal rights, judicial separation, divorce, and annulment of void and voidable marriages.
Hence, the Family Court was not correct in denying interim alimony to the wife on the ground that the husband had filed a suit seeking annulment of the marriage. The very essence of an order under Section 24 would be negated if the decision to provide interim maintenance and the expenses of the proceeding were delayed until the last stage of the case. The direction for interim alimony and litigation expenses under Section 24 is imperative and must be addressed as soon as the matter is brought to the attention of the court, allowing the other issues in dispute to be considered afterwards.
In the case of Amarjeet Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh and Anr. (2001), the Supreme Court, while dealing with the order of the single judge bench of the Haryana and Punjab High Court, discussed the basic requirement that is required to be met while passing an order under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955. Under the order passed by the High Court, a condition was imposed for the purpose of granting maintenance and litigation expenses.
The Supreme Court clarified that in the event that one spouse has no independent income, the Court, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can order one of the spouses to pay the other’s legal expenses/fees and monthly maintenance pending the proceeding. The Court needs to take into consideration the income of both spouses while fixing a reasonable amount. The court further asserted that in assessing the need for interim maintenance, the court should not look at any probable outcome of the main proceeding. While the marriage in question continues, the court is to determine whether the spouse applying under Section 24 has insufficient income. The only discretion that is left with the court is, therefore, to decide on the quantum of the interim maintenance without placing other conditions that will defeat the very purpose of the interim maintenance.
Objectives of Section 24 of the HMA, 1955
The maintenance pendente lite provides for the personal support of the claimant’s spouse and the required expenses of the proceeding. The objective of maintenance pendente lite and expenses under Section 24 of HMA, 1955 is primarily to provide financial assistance to the claimant’s spouse in order for them to carry on with the proceedings and maintain themselves.
It must be understood that pendente lite maintenance is provided to either of the spouses under HMA, 1955 i.e., either of the spouses can claim maintenance. However, under other statutes such as the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, etc., the claim for maintenance can only be made by the wife and not the husband.
In the case of Chitra Lekha vs. Ranjit Rai (1977), it has been held that the objective of Section 24 is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of the proceedings and also to have sufficient funds to carry on with the litigation or defend themselves so that they shall not suffer unduly in the conduct of the case for the want of funds.
In the case of Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Shanna vs. Dropta Bai (1963), the Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that Section 24 is intended to help a spouse who does not have enough independent income to support themselves and cover the necessary legal costs. The goal is to ensure that this spouse can properly defend themselves in the legal proceedings. The decision highlighted that the key requirement for an order under Section 24 is that the applying spouse must be without sufficient means, underscoring the provision’s role in providing support.
The objective of Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, can be well understood in light of the legislative intent of the legislature while enacting the HMA, 1955. In the case of Dharmendra Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi (1994), the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that an examination of the structure and provisions of the HMA, 1955 shows that the primary intention of the HMA, 1955 is to bring some vital reforms to Hindu marriage law.
The HMA, 1955, seeks to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage while at the same time also expanding the grounds on which individuals can claim matrimonial relief. While providing for these reliefs, the legislature has been cautious in ensuring that the marriage bond is not dissolved hastily or without proper cause. For this purpose, the matrimonial court has been vested with several powers, responsibilities, and duties under the HMA, 1955, leading towards the fulfilment of legislative objectives.
Also, the legislature has provided that there should be fairness in the legal battles by recognising the fact that the effect of a fight between persons of unequal standing would lead to an unjust outcome. This fairness has been sought to be achieved by the legislature through the enactment of Section 24, which provides for maintenance during litigation and legal costs. An order made under the provision of Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 is not a determination of the matrimonial case but an incidental order. In other words, orders passed by the court under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 are incidental to the main matrimonial case, not substantive resolutions of it.
Further elaborating on the objective behind the construction of Section 24, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that the right given to a party under this Section should not be constrained without proper and sufficient cause. The proceedings that arise under Section 24 are summary in nature and the scope of the inquiry is correspondingly limited. The objective is to reduce the financial burden on the party who does not have adequate monetary resources.
The objective of Section 24 gets defeated when there is an unnecessary delay in deciding the matter and prolonging reconciliation efforts. Unfavourable economic relations are barriers to reconciliation, which should be mutually respected and dignified. The party that is not financially stable like the other party may feel pressured to reconcile, which lacks mutual respect.
The intention of the legislature is not to force the spouse to reconcile because they are financially dependent. Therefore, the legislature has provided provisions regarding maintenance and legal costs while the case is yet to be decided. This economic balance between the parties ensures that reconciliation takes place genuinely and mutually.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000) decided whether a spouse who can earn but chooses not to should be allowed to claim maintenance during legal proceedings. The court’s decision involved interpreting Section 24 of the HMA, 1955. The court asserted that Section 24 is intended to provide some form of financial support to a spouse who is unable to maintain herself/ himself despite making sincere efforts. Therefore, a spouse who is well-qualified and capable of getting a job should not sit idle just for the purpose of causing the other spouse to provide him/her with alimony.
From the aforementioned pronouncements, it becomes evident that the provision of Section 24 is not intended to equalise the income of the spouses but rather to prevent one from suffering due to a lack of financial support during divorce or other proceedings. Where one spouse has no source of income or support to maintain themselves, the court has to make an order on the basis of the income of the other spouse. However, if both the husband and wife are earning and have good incomes, the court does not need to make an order under Section 24 just because one earns more than the other. Therefore, the true objective of Section 24 is to give financial assistance to the spouse who requires it and not to equalise the incomes of the spouses.
Power of the court under Section 24 of HMA,1955
The courts have the discretion in passing an order regarding the interim maintenance amount that a spouse may be required to pay to the other based on reasonable grounds. In order to exercise this discretion, the court considers the income of the spouse who has made the application for interim maintenance and the income of the other spouse who is required to pay such interim maintenance and expenses.
In the case of L. R. Rajendran vs. Gajalakshmi (1985), the Madras High Court held that the interim maintenance under Section 24 of HMA, 1955, should be a ‘reasonable’ amount. It was further held that stating the fact that the brother of the wife is an income earner is irrelevant and is an invalid ground to refuse interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24. Thus, the grant of interim maintenance of Rs 150 per month as ordered by the lower court was held to be reasonable by the Madras High Court.
The conduct of the parties is an important factor that will influence the discretion of the court. Under Section 24, the court will not ignore the conduct of the parties. For example, if a spouse brings cohabitation to an end by their own misconduct, the court may refuse to grant them any relief under Section 24.
It is pertinent to note that the court’s discretion is judicial and not arbitrary in nature. Such judicial discretion must be exercised within the ambit of Section 24, considering the objective of the Act and adhering to the ideal principles of the matrimonial law. In Mukan Kuwar vs. Ajit Chand (1958), it was held that the discretionary power of the court must be based on sound legal principles and not on caprice and humour.
Procedure under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, a matter is contemplated as a summary enquiry and not a full-fledged trial at length. If the court believes that the applicant is not likely to succeed in the dispute, then in such a case, the court cannot, solely on the basis of such grounds, refuse to grant interim maintenance and expense of proceedings under Section 24.
In the case of Sushila Viresh Chhadva vs. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996), the Bombay High Court held that the fact that there is a strong possibility of a marriage being declared null shall not be a ground for denying interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding to the spouse claiming such interim maintenance under Section 24 of HMA, 1955.
The proviso appended to Section 24 states that the application for the payment of interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings shall be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the spouse.
Quantum of maintenance under Section 24
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under Section 24, does not lay down any rigid rule for deciding the quantum of interim maintenance. However, the quantum of such interim maintenance depends on the following factors:
- The duration of the marriage.
- The means and conduct of the spouses.
- The ability of the spouse to earn.
- Education and maintenance of children.
- Other such reasonable needs of the claimant.
- The educational qualifications of the claimant.
It is to be noted that in matters of granting maintenance pendente lite, the Court exercises a wide discretion. However, this discretion is not to be exercised in an arbitrary manner. It should be within the ambit of Section 24 and guided by the ideal principles of matrimonial laws.
In a recent case of Chetram Mali vs. Karishma Saini (2023), the appellant had sought a reduction of maintenance, stating that while he was initially ordered to pay Rs. 21,000 per month for the respondent and the child under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the PWVD Act’), such an amount was later enhanced to Rs. 30,000 without a change in circumstances. It was contented by the appellant that the trial court failed to take into account that he was the only breadwinner in his family, looking after his two sisters, brother, and elderly parents. Moreover, for his younger brother’s marriage, he borrowed Rs. 4 lakhs from his employer, to which he paid regular instalments. The Delhi High Court, while recognising the contentions raised by the appellant, held that “while considering the quantum of maintenance, the liabilities of the appellant along with his duties towards other family members could not be ignored”.
On the issue of the educational qualification of the claimant (respondent in this case), the Delhi High Court observed that although the respondent claimed to have no independent source of income, she had a reasonable educational background, being a graduate of Delhi University, and appeared to have chosen to engage in social work voluntarily despite having no barriers to obtaining meaningful employment.
The High Court further observed that where a spouse had the ability to work and earn income but decided to stay home without a reasonable cause or made genuine attempts to seek employment then the other party should not be burdened by making him solely liable for meeting the expenses. The objective of granting maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses is not to achieve exact financial equality but to cater to the needs of a spouse unable to maintain himself during the pendency of the proceedings or to prevent such spouse from suffering solely on account of lack of income. The High Court held that the provision of Section 24 was gender neutral and Sections 24 and 25 of the Act outline the rights, liabilities, and obligations resulting from the marriage between the parties as stipulated by the HMA, 1955.
In the case of Dinesh Mehta vs. Usha Mehta (1978), the High Court of Bombay held that Section 24 of HMA, 1955 deals with the deciding of a reasonable amount for interim maintenance. Thus, the fixing of a reasonable amount is more about finding a balance among several competing claims. The Court further stated that reasonableness necessarily means that the wife must be ensured of similar comforts and amenities as she was getting when residing with her husband excluding the reduction resulting from separation and creation of two different establishments.
When can an application under Section 24 be made
The application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 can be filed any time during the pendency of the suit. In the case where the wife is the respondent, she can seek the grant before her written statement is filed.
In the case of Chagan Lal vs. Sakkha Devi and Anr. (1974), the High Court of Rajasthan held that an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA, 1955, and also an application for maintenance under any other matrimonial statute must be decided as quickly as possible but in any case before the main application is decided.
Maintenance to children under Section 24
The primary object of Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 is to enable the provision of interim maintenance to the claimant’s spouse along with the expenses of the proceedings. However, in certain exceptional cases, the court can order the maintenance even for the children who are living with and dependent on the spouse who has claimed the interim maintenance, where such a claim has been justified by the court.
In the case of Dharawant Singh vs. Narinder Kaur (2017), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 does not explicitly state that maintenance for a child can be awarded, the court can still grant it in certain situations. Specifically, if the children are living with the spouse who is requesting maintenance, the court has the authority to include an amount for the children’s maintenance as well. This interpretation ensures that the financial support covers not just the spouse but also the children in their care.
In the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. The District Judge Dehradun & Ors (1997), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that provisions under Section 24 cannot be given a restricted meaning. It was further held that the wife’s right to claim maintenance pendente lite would include her own maintenance and that of her unmarried daughter living with her.
Expenses of the proceedings
A spouse can claim interim maintenance along with the necessary expenses of the proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955. This provision ensures that the spouse is provided with sufficient funds to meet the expenses of the proceedings. The scope of ‘expenses of the proceedings’ is wide; it includes court fees, lawyer’s fees, expenditure incurred in getting services of the witnesses, xerox and typing charges, process fees, etc.
In the case of Smt. Priti Parihar vs. Kailash Singh Parihar (1977), the Court held that if the need arose subsequently, the court has the jurisdiction to grant additional expenses in excess of what was originally sanctioned by it.
Enforcement of orders
The courts have recourse to methods apart from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the enforcement of orders regarding interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings. In the case of Narinder Kaur vs. Pritam Singh (1982), an employed husband who denied obeying the order to pay maintenance pendente lite was punished for contempt and given a sentence of four months.
In the case of Shmt. Malkan Rani vs. Krishan Kumar (1959), the issue regarding the execution of the order passed under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 was brought before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The issue involved was whether a proceeding of the case regarding the restitution of conjugal rights could have stayed till the order passed by the court under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 has been enforced and the amount has been paid by the spouse as directed under the order.
On behalf of the wife, it was contended that there was no specific method provided under the HMA, 1955 for enforcing an order passed under Section 24 of the HMA,1955. Therefore, for the execution of such an order, the matrimonial court can stay the further proceedings if found necessary by the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the husband countered by arguing that the method of enforcing an order had been provided under Section 28 of the HMA, 1955 (now Section 28A after an amendment made in 1976). Section 28 provides that “all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under the HMA, 1955 shall be enforced in the same manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction for the time being in force.” He therefore contended that resorting to any other procedure for enforcement would be inconsistent and prohibited by the HMA, 1955.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court decided upon this issue by interpreting the intention of Section 24 and the circumstances that would result if an order is not enforced within time. The High Court observed that Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 gives the Matrimonial Court the right to order pendente lite maintenance and other expenses for a needy party. The rationale behind this provision is to make sure that the indigent spouse is in a position to produce all the essential evidence and material in the case. The legislature’s intention was to address the issue whereby a party is put at a severe disadvantage and is unable to present relevant facts before the court due to poverty.
The court noted that lawyers demand their fees before rendering their services and the other litigation expenses had to be paid during the proceedings. Thus, the maintenance allowance should be provided during the litigation, not afterwards. In order to achieve the goal of Section 24, such amounts cannot be delayed when applied by the applicant. Due to the probable animosity between the two partners in such circumstances, the partner who is supposed to pay may be reluctant to do so and may also delay the payment.
If the indigent spouse had to initiate execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure to recover such amounts, then it would result in additional and unnecessary legal proceedings. This would pose great challenges for the Matrimonial Court to handle the case expeditiously, thereby denying justice to the spouse who requires the support.
In light of these observations, the High Court held that in order to meet the legislative intention of Section 24 it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The HMA, 1955 does not restrain the courts from exercising this inherent jurisdiction for the purpose of delivering justice. Also, there is no procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure, for the recovery of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses without delay and therefore the court has to exercise the powers inherent in it to enforce these orders.
In the case of Anita Karmotrar And Anr. vs. Birendra Chandra Kannokat (1962), the Calcutta High Court held that it was a strictly permissible step to stay the proceedings of the petitioner in the event of the husband’s non-compliance with the order to pay maintenance pendente lite and expenses. It was further held that Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code vests the court with the said power.
In the case of Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh (2003), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the main condition for the grant of maintenance pendente lite is to ascertain whether the spouse claiming such interim maintenance has independent income that is sufficient for their support. If it is shown that such a spouse does not have sufficient income then the court is bound to grant interim maintenance and the only discretion left with the court shall be the quantum of such interim maintenance.
The effect of non-compliance of order on pending appeal has been discussed in the case of Banso vs. Shri Sarwan, 1978 Hindu LR 2S1, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite on the preference of an appeal by the wife after her petition for judicial separation was dismissed by the court below. The husband disobeyed the order of the Court. On this ground, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Under Section 24, if a spouse is entitled to receive maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, the order so passed can be executed as per Section 28A of the HMA, 1955. The question that arises here is whether the spouse who receives the maintenance award but is unable to support themselves has any other remedies that they can take against the other spouse to compel their compliance.
The answer to such a question lies in various judicial pronouncements, as mentioned above, that agree that given the purpose of the law to provide support to a needy spouse, such an order can be executed through more rigorous methods. Some of the measures include staying the trial, dismissing the petition, adjourning the case indefinitely, dismissing an appeal due to the failure of the defaulting party to respond, striking off the defence, and even taking contempt action against any party that wilfully disregards the order.
Can an appeal lie against the order passed under Section 24 of HMA, 1955
Every order or decree passed by the family court under the HMA, 1955, is appealable under Section 28 of the HMA, 1955, or Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act outlines the provisions for appealing decrees and orders made under the Act. Under Section 28(1), it has been provided that every decree passed by the court in any matter under the HMA, 1955, can be appealed as if they were decrees passed by the court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. These appeals should be made to the court, which normally hears appeals from such decisions. Section 28(2) further provides that any order that is made and given by the court under Section 25 or 26 shall be appealable, provided that it is not an interim order. Section 28(3) provides an exception to this provision, wherein an appeal shall not lie if the order is concerning costs only. Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, on the other hand, provides that “an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.”
In view of the above provision, the question lies as to whether an appeal against the order passed under Section 24 is made under Section 28 of the HMA, 1955, and Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. In the recent case of S.Menaka vs. K.S.K. Nepolian Socrates (2023), the Madras High Court held that an order for interim or pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be appealed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. However, it was clarified by the High Court that such orders can be challenged under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution by way of revision.
It is pertinent to note here that, with regard to the appealability of an order under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, there are conflicting judgements of various High Courts in India. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and Division Benches of the Uttarakhand, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts have held that such an order is appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. In contrast, the full benches of the Orissa and Patna High Courts and division benches of the Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Bombay High Courts have ruled that such an order is not appealable to the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Act. However, as far as the appealability of an order under Section 28 of the HMA, 1955 is concerned, various high courts have unanimously held that such an order of the family court is non-appealable.
In the case of Narendra Kumar Mehta vs. Suraj Mehta (1981), the Andhra Pradesh High Court deliberated on the issue of whether an order passed under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 is appealable under Section 28 of the HMA, 1955. The High Court observed that, originally, any decree or order passed by the court in any proceeding under the Act was appealable under any other law. Any application for maintenance or legal expenses was deemed proceedings under the Act and an appeal could be filed against any order made thereunder, just like any other decree or order made in the original civil jurisdiction of the court.
However, the amendment of Section 28 in 1976 altered this position. Now, under Section 28(1), only decrees and not orders made in any proceeding under the HMA, 1955 are appealable as a decree from the original civil jurisdiction of the court. This is subject to Section 28(3) which provides that no appeal can be made exclusively on the matter of costs. Section 28(2) outlines the kinds of orders that are appealable.
Under Section 28(2), it is provided that any order made under Section 25 or 26 of the HMA, 1955, shall be appealable where such order is not an interim order or an order as to costs. This means that interim orders and orders regarding costs are non-appealable. Thus, the order can only be challenged if it was given under Section 25 or Section 26 and no appeal will lie against the order made under any other Section of the HMA, 1955 unless the right to appeal is expressly granted by the HMA, 1955. In view of such an observation, the court held that the order passed under Section 24 being interim in nature and specifically excluded by the legislature can not be appealed against as per the provisions of Section 28 of the HMA, 1955.
In the case of P.T. Lakshman Kumar vs. Mrs. Bhavani (2013), the Madras High Court, after analysing Section 28 of the HMA, 1955, held that from the reading of the provisions of Section 28, it is clear that Section 28(1) means that appeals can be made against decrees, whereas Section 28(2) means that appeals can be made against the orders made under the Act.
Under Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13A, and 13B, the court passes a decree that is clearly appealable under Sub-section (1) of Section 28. On the other hand, under Sections 24, 25, and 26, the court issues orders. Any order made under Section 25 or 26 is an appealable order under Subsection (2) of Section 28, provided that it is not an interim order. The High Court noted and emphasised through its interpretation of Section 28 that the legislature has deliberately omitted Section 24 from this provision, thereby making the order passed under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 non-appealable.
Conclusion
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that in any proceeding under the HMA, 1955, if a court believes that either the husband or the wife has no source of independent income to provide for his or her support and the required expenses of the proceedings then the Court may, on the application of such dependent spouse, order the other spouse to pay the expenses of the proceedings and the monthly sum during such proceeding as the Court finds reasonable with regard to the income of both the spouses.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the meaning of maintenance?
According to Section 3(b)(i), maintenance includes maintenance with respect to food, clothing, residence, education, and medical care. For an unmarried daughter, it also includes the expenses for her marriage. Permanent maintenance provisions exist in all personal laws and these provisions are relatively similar with slight differences among them. Maintenance is not merely a legal right but a human right, especially for the vulnerable groups whose lives depend on it.
The primary aims of providing maintenance are to avoid homelessness and poverty resulting from marital problems and to guarantee that a financially helpless spouse can effectively engage in the legal process. During a marital breakdown, the husband tends to neglect the financial obligations of the wife, and the children, thereby compelling them to be dependent on their grandparents and other close relatives.
It is both reasonable and justifiable to provide financial assistance to a spouse who is in need because, had the marriage not been dissolved, the husband would have been under an obligation to support the wife. However, under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, not only a wife but the husband as well is eligible to get maintenance from his wife if he is not able to maintain himself.
What is the difference between Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is applicable only to Hindus and acts as an interim relief during the trial process. After the case has come to an end, benefits under Section 24 automatically cease. On the other hand, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is available for all individuals, including parents, minor sons, and minor daughters. It is known for its fast procedure and provides permanent maintenance as a relief. Although this Section is part of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is of a civil nature, with the exception of following criminal procedure, which makes the procedure faster. The right under Section 125 is available till the wife remarries and it applies to all religions.
What is the difference between Section 24 and Section 25 of the HMA, 1955?
Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 provides for interim maintenance to the spouse which means that the maintenance shall be provided till the pendency of the case. Whereas Section 25 of the HMA, 1955 provides for the permanent maintenance to the spouse implying that the court after assessing the facts and circumstances of the case may order to pay maintenance to the applicant till he or she remarries.
References
- https://ijtr.nic.in/family%20matters/HC_Judgements_FamilyMatters%201st%20regional%20.pdf
- https://www.worldwidejournals.com/paripex/recent_issues_pdf/2017/October/maintenance-of-husband–wife-a-study-of-hindu-laws_October_2017_6362091849_2305154.pdf
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
