• 03 Jan 2025

Husband Right to Maintenance: Legal Boundaries, Borrower Rights & Remedies

Did You Know?

In 2021, India reported a staggering 1,64,033 suicides. Of these, a heartbreaking 72%—an overwhelming 1,18,979 individuals—were men. Even more alarming, 81,063 of these men were married, highlighting an urgent yet often-ignored crisis. Family problems accounted for 33.2% of these deaths, while marriage-related issues contributed to another 4.8%. These figures aren’t just statistics—they’re stories of men silently suffering under the weight of societal expectations, often without the support or acknowledgment they need.

Introduction 

The idea that a husband can claim maintenance from his wife under Indian law may come as a surprise to many, rooted as it is in a traditionally patriarchal context where men are perceived as the primary breadwinners. However, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, marked a significant shift by introducing Section 24, which allows either spouse to claim interim maintenance during legal proceedings. This provision aims to ensure fairness in cases where one spouse is financially dependent on the other.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act states:

“Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of either party, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”

This provision reflects a shift towards gender-neutrality in financial rights within marriage. Although the law is clear in its intention, societal norms have often rendered it underutilized by men.

Legal Provisions 

Detailed Overview of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, serves as a fundamental provision that allows either spouse to claim interim maintenance during matrimonial proceedings. This section ensures that a financially disadvantaged spouse can participate in litigation without being hindered by monetary limitations.

Criteria for Granting Maintenance Under Section 24

To successfully claim maintenance under this provision, the following criteria are assessed:

1. Income Disparity: The petitioner must demonstrate a significant income difference that affects their ability to sustain themselves during proceedings.
2. Evidence of Need: Substantial documentation such as bank statements, proof of unemployment, or medical records must be provided.
3. Financial Capacity of the Respondent: The court evaluates the respondent’s income, assets, and liabilities to determine their capacity to pay.

Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715: Although focused on maintenance claims by wives, this case highlighted that the provision is centered around the claimant’s financial condition: “The primary consideration for the court is the petitioner’s need for support and the respondent’s ability to provide such support.”

Factors Courts Consider When Granting Maintenance

To arrive at a fair maintenance amount, courts analyse various factors:

• Petitioner’s Financial Status: Courts review whether the petitioner has any independent income and if it is sufficient to meet their basic needs.
• Respondent’s Financial Capabilities: The financial standing of the respondent, including their salary, assets, liabilities, and dependents, is evaluated.
• Standard of Living: Courts try to ensure that the petitioner maintains a reasonable standard of living that is proportionate to what was enjoyed during the marriage.

In cases where the petitioner is the husband, demonstrating financial need and the respondent’s superior financial capability is crucial. A successful claim often hinges on well-documented evidence.

Comparative Perspective

Compared to international norms, India’s provision under Section 24 aligns with the broader move toward gender equality in maintenance laws. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 enables either spouse to claim spousal maintenance based on financial need and the ability to pay, regardless of gender. These parallel underscores the global trend toward ensuring fairness in spousal support laws.

Recent Developments and Court Approaches

In 2023, a Delhi Family Court case highlighted the application of Section 24 in favor of a husband who was unemployed due to medical reasons. The court ruled: “The husband’s financial incapacity, supported by medical records and income proofs, warrants maintenance during the pendency of proceedings to prevent undue hardship.”

This case, covered by India Today, showed the progressive stance some courts have begun to adopt, despite ongoing societal resistance.

Societal Context 

Cultural Norms and Gender Roles in Indian Society

In Indian society, men have traditionally been seen as breadwinners and providers, while women were considered dependent, especially within marriage. This cultural framework has historically influenced the perception and application of maintenance laws. Maintenance provisions like Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, aimed to provide financial relief to the economically weaker spouse during litigation. However, societal norms often skew the application and acceptance of such laws when the claimant is a husband.

Stigma Around Men Claiming Maintenance

Men claiming maintenance face widespread stigma. The notion of masculinity in India is closely tied to financial capability, leading to societal resistance when a man seeks financial support from his wife. This stigma discourages many husbands from asserting their rights under Section 24, even when they are financially dependent due to circumstances like unemployment, health issues, or other valid reasons.

Recent Case Laws and Observations

1. Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr (Crl) Appeal No. 730 of 2020:

The Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for a balanced approach in determining maintenance claims. The court established guidelines for calculating maintenance, asserting that both spouses have equal rights to seek maintenance, regardless of gender. The ruling clarified that husbands can claim maintenance based on their financial needs, and the court should consider the financial capacity of both parties when making a decision. This landmark judgment is significant in reinforcing the rights of husbands in maintenance cases.  

1. Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana (2022):

In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a lower court's order directing a wife to pay interim maintenance to her husband. The court noted that the husband had no independent income and was unable to support himself due to disability, while the wife had a stable income. This case reinforces the principle that maintenance is not solely a woman's right but can also be claimed by men under similar circumstances.  

1. Vijay Kumar v. Harsh Lata Aggarwal (Decided on 10.09.2008): 

Although slightly older, this case is often cited in recent judgments regarding maintenance rights for husbands. The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband could claim maintenance if he demonstrated financial need, particularly if he had been the primary caregiver during the marriage. This case has influenced subsequent rulings related to men's rights in maintenance claims.  

1. Kiran v. State of Delhi (2021): 

In this case, the Delhi High Court directed a wife to pay her husband interim maintenance, highlighting that both parties' financial situations must be considered equally during divorce proceedings. The court noted that if one spouse is financially dependent on the other, they are entitled to claim maintenance regardless of gender.  

1. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar (2023): 

The Patna High Court ruled in favor of a husband seeking maintenance from his wife, emphasizing that the legal provisions for maintenance apply equally to both genders under the Hindu Marriage Act and other relevant laws. The court granted him interim maintenance based on his inability to earn an income due to health issues, thereby reinforcing the notion that husbands can seek support when they are in need.

Landmark Judgments 

1. Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal, 1996 AIR 3192, SC

This case is one of the earliest instances where the Supreme Court clarified the gender-neutral scope of Section 24. The husband, in this case, sought maintenance on the grounds of financial dependency.

"The object of Section 24 is to provide maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to either spouse who does not have sufficient independent income to support themselves during the pendency of legal proceedings. The provision does not discriminate between genders and focuses entirely on the financial incapacity of the claimant. The determination of maintenance is based on the principle of equity and need."

This judgment reinforced that maintenance is not a privilege limited to wives but a right available to any financially dependent spouse. The ruling established that the courts must assess financial incapacity and income disparities objectively, without being influenced by traditional gender roles.     

2. Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715

Although this case primarily dealt with a wife claiming maintenance, it offered insights into the factors courts consider when assessing maintenance claims under Section 24. The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in determining maintenance amounts.

"The court must consider the financial status of both parties, their earning capacity, and their respective needs to arrive at a just and equitable maintenance amount. The intention is to prevent undue hardship to either party during the pendency of legal proceedings."

While the claimant in this case was a wife, the judgment’s principles apply universally. It clarified that maintenance decisions should balance the needs of both parties, offering a framework that husbands can also rely on in their claims.

Protecting Husbands' Rights and Financial Security in Marital Disputes

Gathering Evidence

False allegations in marital disputes can have severe consequences, making the preservation of evidence paramount. Husbands should maintain call recordings, messages, and chats as critical proof for legal proceedings. This documentation can significantly strengthen their case and ensure an accurate representation of events in court.

Seeking Legal Counsel

Navigating family law and false accusation cases requires professional legal advice. Engaging an experienced lawyer familiar with family law ensures that husbands are well-informed about their rights and procedural safeguards, enabling strategic decisions during litigation.

Filing Counter-Complaints

To counter false allegations, husbands can initiate legal action under BNSS, which penalizes false complaints. Proactively challenging fabricated charges deters misuse of legal provisions and strengthens the husband’s position.

Anticipatory Bail Applications

In cases where arrest is imminent, applying for anticipatory bail ensures protection against detention, allowing the accused to continue their defence from outside custody.

Exploring Mediation

Mediation serves as a viable alternative to protracted litigation. It promotes dialogue and often results in mutually agreeable settlements, alleviating emotional and financial strain on both parties.

Health and Well-Being

False accusations can take a psychological toll, making self-care critical. Husbands should prioritize mental and physical health, seek support from friends and family, and consider professional counselling if needed.

Cooperating with Police Investigations

Providing requested documents and fully cooperating with police investigations fosters transparency and strengthens the husband’s credibility in legal proceedings.

Financial Rights and Maintenance Challenges

Record Maintenance

Documenting income and expenses through salary slips, bank statements, and records of daily expenditures is crucial. Such evidence provides the court with an accurate picture of financial capacity and liabilities, aiding in fair maintenance assessments.

Transparent Disclosures in Court

Presenting accurate income and liabilities, including loans and dependent family expenses, ensures that courts can objectively assess financial capabilities.

Highlighting Wife’s Income

If the wife is earning, gathering evidence such as salary slips, tax returns, or bank statements can reduce the maintenance liability of the husband. Courts consider these factors to ensure fairness in judgments.

Balancing Child Responsibilities

Child maintenance is a shared responsibility. Demonstrating existing contributions toward children’s education or living expenses fosters fairness in maintenance claims and highlights shared parental obligations.

Addressing Unfair Claims

Husbands should counter inflated claims or misrepresentations of income by presenting robust evidence. For instance, if a wife falsely claims unemployment despite working part-time, submitting proof of her employment can challenge these assertions effectively.

Complying with Court Orders

Adherence to interim court orders demonstrates responsibility and strengthens the husband’s case during ongoing litigation.

Extra Financial Precautions for Husbands

Segregation of Personal and Business Assets

Maintaining distinct boundaries between personal and business properties safeguards assets from unnecessary legal complications.

Asset Transfers to Trusts or Sole Ownership

Transferring significant investments and properties into trusts or sole ownership reduces exposure to potential legal claims during marital disputes.

Joint Accounts and Nominations

Husbands should exercise caution in joint financial accounts and nominations, ensuring clarity through written agreements to minimize disputes.

Documenting Gifts and Transactions

Proper documentation of major financial transactions and gifts reduces ambiguity and prevents unwarranted claims in legal proceedings.

Challenges and Critiques

Despite progressive provisions like Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows maintenance claims by men, systemic barriers persist:

• Burden of Proof: Courts demand substantial evidence to establish financial dependency, such as income statements, medical records, or documentation of job loss.
• Societal Stigma: Maintenance-seeking men often face derogatory labels, stemming from outdated notions of masculinity. This stigma deters many from exercising their legal rights.
• Implementation Hurdles: Critics argue that while laws are gender-neutral in theory, practical challenges like complex evidence submission and ingrained biases hinder their equitable application.

Legal experts advocate reforms such as streamlined processes for evidence submission, gender-neutral public awareness campaigns, and training for judicial professionals to address these barriers effectively.

Conclusion

India’s maintenance laws aim to uphold equity, but societal perceptions and practical challenges often impede their fair application. Achieving true gender neutrality requires a shift in cultural attitudes to view financial needs as human, not gendered, issues.

Recommendations

1. Public Awareness Campaigns: Promote gender-neutral interpretations of financial rights through media and education.
2. Simplified Evidence Submission: Streamline procedural requirements to reduce the burden of proof.
3. Judicial Training: Educate legal professionals on the importance of impartiality in gender-neutral law enforcement.

Understanding these laws benefits all individuals by fostering equity and providing support to those genuinely in need. With increased awareness and proactive measures, India can ensure the fair application of its matrimonial laws.

Disclaimer

The contents in this article are just for informational purposes only. Efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information, the author(s) and publisher do not guarantee its completeness or precision. Any matter written in this article does not express the opinion of the author or the publisher. Additionally, it does not reflect the views of the organisation. Readers should self-analyse the information and perceive accordingly. The author(s), The publisher and the organisation are not responsible for any losses or damage occurring due to the interpretation of the article.