Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Overview of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pertains to providing temporary financial support to a dependent spouse during ongoing legal proceedings.
• It ensures that either the wife or the husband, lacking independent income for their support and legal expenses, receives necessary financial assistance.

Purpose of Section 24

• It aims to guarantee that the dependent spouse can meet their basic needs throughout the legal process.
• This provision covers maintenance (pendent lite) for a spouse and does not extend to children.

Provisions of Section 24

• The court, upon recognizing the financial disparity between spouses, can order the respondent to cover legal expenses and provide a reasonable monthly sum.
• Both spouses' incomes are considered when determining the support amount.

Comparison with Special Marriage Act, 1954

• Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 offers a similar provision but only allows the wife to claim alimony pendente lite, not the husband.

Interim Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, 1973

• Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 addresses interim maintenance for the wife by the husband.
• Section 24 applies to cases involving various marital issues like restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, void marriages, voidable marriages, and divorce.

Objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

• Maintenance pendente lite, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, aims to provide interim financial support to the spouse filing for maintenance and cover legal expenses.
• This provision's primary goal is to assist the claimant spouse financially, helping them sustain themselves and continue legal proceedings.
• Notably, in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, both spouses have the right to request pendente lite maintenance, unlike in other laws like the Special Marriage Act (1954) and the Criminal Procedure Code(1973) where only the wife is entitled to claim maintenance.
• In the case of Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977), it was emphasized that Section 24 aims to provide financial aid to the financially disadvantaged spouse during legal proceedings to ensure their active participation without financial constraints.

When to Apply for Section 24 Relief?

• An application for interim maintenance and legal expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be made at any point during the ongoing legal proceedings.
• If the wife is the respondent, she has the right to request this support even before submitting her written statement.

Legal Precedent

• In the case of Chagan Lal v. Sakkha Devi (1974), the Rajasthan High Court emphasized the prompt resolution of applications for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA, 1955 and other matrimonial statutes.
• It is crucial that such applications are addressed expeditiously, ideally before the final decision on the primary legal matter.

Procedure under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 involves a summary inquiry rather than a lengthy trial.
• If the court doubts the applicant's chances of success, it cannot deny interim maintenance solely on that basis.
• In the case of Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996), the Bombay High Court emphasized that the possibility of a marriage being annulled should not prevent the grant of interim maintenance.
• The proviso to Section 24 mandates that applications for interim maintenance must be resolved within sixty days of notice being served on the spouse.

Power of the Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Court's Authority under Section 24:

• The court has the power under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to determine the amount of interim maintenance one spouse should pay to the other based on reasonable grounds.
• Income Consideration: The court considers the income of both spouses involved - the one seeking maintenance and the one required to provide it.

Case of Rajendran v. Gajalakshmi (1985):

• Interim Maintenance: The Madras High Court emphasized that the interim maintenance set in Section 24 must be 'reasonable'.
• Income Sources: Not considering the wife's brother as an income-earner cannot be a valid reason to deny her interim maintenance.
• Example: The court deemed Rs. 150 per month, awarded by the lower court, as a reasonable amount for interim maintenance.

Role of Conduct:

• Party Behavior: The conduct of the parties plays a significant role in the court's discretion under Section 24. 
• Example: If a spouse ceases cohabitation due to their own wrongdoing, the court might refuse to grant them relief under Section 24.

Judicial Discretion

• Principled Decision-Making: The court's discretion is not arbitrary but judicial, aligning with matrimonial law principles and the Act's objectives.
• Legal Precedent: In Mukan Kuwar v. Ajit Chand (1958), it was established that the court's discretionary power should be guided by legal principles, not arbitrary choices.

Quantum of Maintenance under Section 24

• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 involves a brief inquiry rather than a prolonged trial. Even if the court suspects that the applicant might not succeed in the case eventually, it cannot refuse interim maintenance and expense of proceedings solely on this basis.
• In the case of Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996), the Bombay High Court determined that the likelihood of a marriage being annulled should not be a justification to withhold interim maintenance and expenses from the spouse seeking support under Section 24 of HMA, 1955.
• The proviso linked to Section 24 mandates that the application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings must be decided within sixty days from the date of serving notice on the spouse.
• Concerning the determination of interim maintenance under Section 24, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not lay down rigid guidelines. Instead, the amount is influenced by various factors such as:
  • The duration of the marriage.
  • The behavior and financial status of the spouses.
  • The earning capacity of the spouse.
  • The education and upkeep of children.
  • Other legitimate needs of the claimant.
• It is crucial to understand that when awarding maintenance pendente lite, the court possesses broad discretion but must exercise it judiciously and in accordance with Section 24 and matrimonial law principles.
• In the case of Dinesh Mehta v. Usha Mehta (1978), the Bombay High Court clarified that Section 24 of HMA, 1955 focuses on determining a fair amount for interim maintenance. This process entails striking a balance among various conflicting claims. The court stressed that fairness entails ensuring that the wife can access similar comforts and amenities to those she had while living with her husband, minus any reductions due to separation and the establishment of two separate households.

Maintenance to Children under Section 24 of HMA, 1955

• Primary Objective of Section 24:
  • The main aim of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to provide interim maintenance to the spouse filing for maintenance and to cover legal expenses.
• Provision for Children:
  • In exceptional circumstances, the court can also order maintenance for dependent children of the claiming spouse if the claim is deemed justified.
• Interpretation of Section 24:
  • The Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997) clarified that Section 24 should not be narrowly construed.
  • It was highlighted that the right of a wife under Hindu Law to claim maintenance pendente lite extends to her unmarried daughter residing with her.

Expenses Incurred During Legal Proceedings

• Spousal Maintenance Requests and Legal Expenses under Section 24 of HMA, 1955:
  • Spouses can seek interim maintenance to cover legal costs during proceedings.
  • Interim maintenance safeguards that spouses have adequate funds for legal expenses.
• Scope of Expenses Covered:
  • Expenses include court fees, legal charges, witness expenses, and administrative costs.
  • Additional costs like photocopying, typing charges, and process fees are also encompassed.
• Expanded Financial Support:
  • In the case of Prili Parihar v. Kailash Singh Parihar (1975), the court possesses the authority to grant extra expenses if the need arises.
  • Additional funding can be allocated beyond the initially approved amount to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.

Enforcement of Orders

• Courts employ various methods, apart from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to enforce orders concerning interim maintenance and legal proceedings expenses.
• In the case of Narinder Kaur v. Prilam Singh (1985), an employed husband faced contempt of court and a four-month prison sentence for failing to comply with the maintenance pendente lite order.
• According to the Calcutta High Court in Anita Karmotrar v. Birendra Chandra Kannokat (1962), the court can halt the petitioner's proceedings if the husband does not adhere to the maintenance pendente lite and expenses order, with authority from Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
• In Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003), the Supreme Court clarified that the primary condition for granting maintenance pendente lite is assessing if the spouse seeking interim maintenance possesses adequate independent income. If lacking, the court must provide interim maintenance, with the amount being the only discretionary factor.
• Banso v. Sarwan (1978) highlighted the consequences of disobeying an order during an ongoing appeal. The husband's non-compliance led to the High Court allowing the appeal, mandating maintenance pendente lite during the appeal's pendency.

Important Judgements on Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act

• Sandeep Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2004 Jhar 22): This case highlights that Section 24 does not differentiate between the rights of a wife for maintenance under different sections (12 or 13) of the Act.
• Captain, Ramesh Chander v. Veena Kaushal (AIR 1978 SC 1807): This ruling clarifies that even if divorce proceedings end unfavorably for one party, the right to maintenance persists unless both parties agree on the maintenance terms or amount.
• Manokaran v. Devaki (AIR 2003 Mad 212): In this case, it is emphasized that a wife can seek maintenance pendente lite during divorce proceedings if she proves insufficient independent income for her sustenance.
• Kanchan v. Kamalendra (AIR 1993 Bom 493): This case notes that under Section 24, both spouses can claim maintenance pendente lite if they lack independent income. However, the husband must demonstrate a physical or mental incapacity preventing him from earning.
• Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Vinod Kejriwal (AIR 1993 Bom 168): This judgment establishes that a spouse can file for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while other applications under the Code of Civil Procedure are ongoing.
• Dr. Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Keshireo Rajaram Sawai (AIR 1987 SC 1100): Here, it is explained that Section 125(1)(d) imposes the responsibility on sons and daughters to support a parent who cannot sustain themselves.
• Captain Ramesh Chander v. Veena Kaushal (AIR 1978 SC 1807): This case distinguishes between a final decision under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and an interim order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The latter is focused on meeting the expenses of the proceedings and providing a reasonable monthly sum during the case based on the parties' incomes.

Conclusion

• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allows Indian courts to provide interim maintenance and cover legal expenses for spouses entangled in matrimonial disputes.
• Financially dependent spouses, be it the husband or wife, can request financial assistance throughout the legal proceedings.
• The court can mandate the other spouse to bear costs related to legal proceedings, encompassing legal fees, court charges, and other necessary expenses.
• The primary aim is to ensure that the dependent spouse can sustain themselves and actively participate in the legal process.
• The court holds the authority to decide the maintenance amount based on factors like income levels, behavior, and the requirements of the involved parties.