The purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to ensure that neither spouse faces financial constraints during matrimonial proceedings under the law, the Court noted.
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife when both spouses possess equivalent qualifications and earn identical incomes.
In this case, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna underscored the fundamental aim of Section 24, which is to ensure that neither spouse faces financial concerns during matrimonial proceedings, which might otherwise hinder their full participation due to financial constraints.
The court’s decision states, “We observe that in the present case, where both the spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Act… The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income of both spouses or to provide interim maintenance commensurate with maintaining a similar lifestyle as the other spouse, as previously held by this Court in the case of K.N. vs. R.G.”
This judgment came after a family court ordered the husband to pay 40,000 per month for child maintenance but rejected the wife’s plea for spousal maintenance. Subsequently, the husband and wife each filed separate appeals with the Supreme Court.
The couple got married in 2014 and had a son the following year. However, they separated in 2020. The husband sought a reduction in child support payments, while the wife requested 2 lakh in spousal maintenance. Additionally, the wife asked the High Court to raise the monthly child support amount from 40,000 to 60,000.
The court acknowledged that both the wife and husband had impressive qualifications. The wife’s monthly earnings were 2.5 lakhs, and the husband’s monthly income was $7,134, which, when converted into Indian rupees, matched the wife’s income, the court noted. The court also recognized that while the husband earned in dollars, his expenses were likewise in dollars. The husband explained that his monthly expenditures amounted to approximately USD 7,000, leaving minimal room for savings, and he supported this with the relevant documentation.
Considering the comparable incomes of both spouses and their shared responsibility for the child’s maintenance, the court decided to reduce the husband’s interim child support obligation to 25,000 per month.
As a result, the Court dismissed both appeals. The widow was represented by attorneys Anuj Arora and Pardeep Sharma, while attorney Somvir Singh Deshwa represented the husband.
