Delhi High Court Denies Interim Maintenance To Wife Citing Estranged 70-Yr-Old Husband's Financial & Emotional Incapacity
The Delhi High Court recently denied interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to a woman, citing her estranged husband's financial incapacity.“Respondent should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained,” a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal...
The Delhi High Court recently denied interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to a woman, citing her estranged husband's financial incapacity.
“Respondent should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained,” a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
The woman was living separately from her husband, now aged over 70 years, for about three decades.
She sought maintenance from him and meanwhile moved an application under Section 24 of maintenance pendente lite. The provision is aimed to ensure basic sustenance of the spouse during litigation.
After the Family Court denied her benefit of this provision, she approached the High Court.
The Respondent-husband submitted that the appellant-wife is a highly qualified individual, and had retired as a Senior Teacher in July 2014. He further submitted 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.
He on the other hand, the High Court noted, was of an advanced age, unfit for any gainful employment. Moreover, he was deprived of all retiral benefits in his previous employment, forcing him to borrow substantial sums for the purpose of meeting his basic living expenses.
Under these circumstances the High Court observed, “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.”
It clarified that Section 24 is meant 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; not to impose undue financial burden or to match the lifestyle of the other spouse.
“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 Court said.
As such, it dismissed the wife's appeal.
Appearance: Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Himanshu, Advocate for Respondent
Case title: YV v. VV
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936
Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023