Maintenance under family proceedings can take up two forms, i.e. permanent maintenance and temporary or interim maintenance. Maintenance can be sought under the personal laws, The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Maintenance and Alimony are used in the practical sense in an interchangeable manner however, in the theoretical sense there is a substantial difference between them i.e. alimony is usually a one-time lump sum payment whereas maintenance can be granted in different ways, such as monthly, quarterly, one-time or even during the proceedings.
In the era of gender equality and neutrality, the determination of maintenance for husbands has gained importance before the court of law. The provision for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under Section 24 and 25, are gender neutral in nature as it provides:
“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- 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 the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of 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.”
“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purposes by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immoveable property of the respondent.
(2) If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.
(3) If the Court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this Section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste or if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.”
The Delhi High Court in its judgment, Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi, 179 (2011) DLT 414, directed the petitioner-wife to pay maintenance to the respondent-husband. Justice G.S. Sistani, observed that:
“The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the term support is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses.”
However, it is not always, that a husband is awarded maintenance so easily; rather awarding maintenance to the husband should be an exceptional circumstance arising out of his incapacity or due to him being a handicap. Various decisions of different High Courts have reiterated the same principles such as the Kerala High Court in the case of Nivya V.M. v. Shivaprasad N.K., OP (FC).No. 26 of 2015 (R), decided on February 14, 2017, held that:
“If such an attitude has been taken by the Courts, then idleness of husbands will be promoted and they will be tempted not to do any work and depend on the wife for their livelihood, and such thing is not expected to be promoted in the society and that was not the intention of Section 24 of the Act providing maintenance to either party to the proceedings. It was intended to support only such spouse who is really incapable of maintaining himself/herself to get something for their sustenance and to conduct the litigation which they were forced to face from the other party to the proceedings who is capable of supporting the other spouse and nothing more.”
Yet another relevant aspect to discuss when it comes to maintenance proceedings is the fact that it is well settled that parties to a marriage can claim maintenance from each other; however what is the status for those living in a live-in relationship? Are parties who are living together in a live-in relationship also entitled to claim maintenance from their partner? The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Toppo vs. The State of Jharkhand gave the answer to this in the affirmative. The Court in the above judgment was of the view that maintenance can be claimed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The recent trend keeping in mind the increase in the employment of women in workplaces, is the defense by the husbands while denying to give maintenance by stating that their wives are capable of earning. In light of this, plethora of judgments has been given such as the judgment by the Supreme Court of India in Sunita Kachwaha and ors. V. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, wherein it was held that even though the wife was earning some amount that may not be a reason to reject her application for maintenance outright.
Further, the principle of maintaining the same standard and quality of life that existed at the time of marriage and the maintenance amount to be in accordance to that principle has also been reiterated in various judgments by the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the country. The concept of maintenance has evolved from being given for mere sustenance to that of maintaining the same standard of life that a spouse would have been entitled to had they not separated from the spouse.
