Maintenance under Hindu Law

Maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Maintenance

Maintenance means the right of dependents to obtain food, clothing, shelter, medical care,
education, and reasonable marriage expenses for marriage of a girl, from the provider of the
family or the inheritor of an estate. The basic concept of maintenance originated from the
existence of joint families where every member of the family including legal relations as well
as concubines, illegitimate children, and even slaves were taken care of by the family.
However, maintenance does not mean unreasonable expectations or demands.

Historical Perspective

Joint family system has been a main feature of the Hindu society since vedic ages. In a joint
family, it is the duty of the able male members to earn money and provide for the needs of
other members such as women, children, and aged or infirm parents.

In Manusmriti, it has been said that wife, children, and old parents must be cared for
even by doing a hundred misdeeds.

Since in the social structure of Hindu society the joint family system looms large, the law of
maintenance has a special significance in Hindu law. All members of a joint family, whatever
be their status and whatever be their age, are entitled to maintenance. Hindu law recognizes
that a hindu has a personal obligation to maintain certain near relations, such as wife,
children, and aged parents and that the one who takes another’s property has an obligation to
maintain the latter’s dependents. Thus husband has a direct obligation to maintain his wife. In
modern system of law, the obligation exists even after the dissolution of marriage. Thus, a
wife has right to maintenance in following situation:

 When the wife lives with her husband.

 When the wife lives separate from her husband, and
 When the wife lives separate under a decree of the court or when is dissolved.

HAMA 1956 codifies a lot of principles governing the maintenance of dependents of a Hindu
male. Under this act, the obligation can be divided into two categories - personal obligation
and obligation tied to the property.

Dependents based on personal obligation

Personal obligation means that a Hindu is personally liable, irrespective of the property that
he has inherited or his earnings, to provide for certain relations who are dependent on him.
These relations have been specified in the following sections of HAMA 1956.
Section 18(1) declares that whether married before or after this act, a Hindu wife shall be
entitled to claim maintenance by her husband during her lifetime.

Sec 18(2) says that a wife is entitled to live separately without forfeiting her right to claim
maintenance in certain situations.

Sec 18(3) says that a wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance of she is
unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu.

In the case of Jayanti vs Alamelu, 1904 Madras HC held that the obligation to maintain
one's wife is one's personal obligation and it exists independent of any property, personal or
ancestral.

Dependents based on obligation tied to property

A person has obligation to support certain relations of another person whose property has
devolved on him. In this case, this obligation is not personal but only up to the extent that it
can be maintained from the devolved property.

Section 21 specifies these relations of the deceased who must be supported by the person who
receives the deceased property.
1. father
2. mother
3. widow, so long as she does not remarry
4. son, predeceased son's son, or predeceased son's predeceased son's son until the age of
majority. Provided that he is not able to obtain maintenance from his father or mother's
estate in the case of grandson, and from his father or mother, or father's father or
father's mother, in the case of great grandson.
5. daughter or predeceased son's daughter, or predeceased son's predeceased son's
daughter until she gets married. Provided that he is not able to obtain maintenance from
his father or mother's estate in the case of granddaughter, and from his father or mother,
or father's father or father's mother, in the case of great granddaughter.
6. widowed daughter, if she is not getting enough maintenance from her husband's,
children's, or father in law's estate.
7. widow of predeceased son, or widow of predeceased son's son, so long as she does not
remarry and if the widow is not getting enough maintenance from her husband's,
children's or her father or mother's estate in the case of son's widow.
8. illegitimate son, until the age of majority
9. illegitimate daughter, until she is married.

Section 22 (1) says that heirs of a Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents of the
deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. Thus, this obligation is to be
fulfilled only from the inherited property and so it is not a personal obligation. 22(2) says that
where a dependent has not received any share, by testamentary or intestate succession, he
shall be entitled to maintenance from those who take the estate. 22(3) says that the liability of
each heir is in proportion to the estate obtained by him. 22(4) says that a person who himself
is a dependent cannot be forced to pay any amount of maintenance if the amount causes his
share to reduce below what is required to maintain himself.

How much maintenance

Section 23(1) says that courts will have complete discretion upon whether and how much to
maintenance should be given. While deciding this, the courts shall consider the guidelines
given in sections 23(2) and 23(3).
Section 23(2) says that that while deciding the maintenance for wife, children, and aged or
infirm parents, the courts will consider:
1. the position and status of the parties.
2. the reasonable wants of the claimants.
3. If a claimant has a separate residence, is it really needed.
4. the value of the estate and the income derived from it or claimant's own earning or any
other source of income.
5. the number of claimants.

Section 23(3) says that while determining the maintenance for all other dependents the courts
shall consider the following points:
1. the net value of the estate after paying all his debts.
2. the provisions, if any, made in the will in favor of the claimants.
3. the degree of the relationship between the two.
4. the reasonable wants of the dependent.
5. the past relations between the deceased and the claimants.
6. claimant's own earnings or other sources of income.
7. the number of dependents claiming under this act.

Separate earning of the claimant

Whether the claimant has separate earning on income is a question of fact and not a question
of presumption. It cannot be, for example, presumed that a college educated girl can maintain
herself.

In the case of Kulbhushan vs. Raj Kumari wife was getting an allowance of 250/- PM from
her father. This was not considered to be her income but only a bounty that she may or may
not get. However, income from inherited property is counted as the claimant’s earning.

Arrears of Maintenance

In the case of Raghunath vs Dwarkabai 1941 Bom HC held that right of maintenance is a
recurring right and non-payment of maintenance prima facie constitutes proof of wrongful
withholding.

Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law (Section 19)

(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be
entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law:
PROVIDED and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings
or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance-
(a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or
(b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.

(2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in law has not
the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the
daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re-
marriage of the daughter-in-law.

Wife's right to separate residence without forfeiting the right

to maintenance
Section 18(2) says that a wife can live separately and still claim maintenance from husband in
the following situations.
1. Desertion: It the husband is guilty of deserting the wife without her consent, against
wife's wishes, and without any reasonable cause, the wife is entitled to separate
residence. In the case of Meera vs Sukumar 1994 Mad., it was held that willful
neglect of the husband constitutes desertion.
2. Cruelty: If husband through his actions creates sufficient apprehension in the mind of
the wife that living with the husband is injurious to her then that is cruelty. In the case
of Ram Devi vs Raja Ram 1963 Allahbad, if the husband treats the wife with
contempt, resents her presence and makes her feel unwanted, this is cruelty.
3. If the husband is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy.
4. If the husband has another wife living. In the case of Kalawati vs Ratan 1960
Allahbad, is has been held that it is not necessary that the second wife is living with
the husband but only that she is alive.
5. If the husband keeps a concubine or habitually resides with one. In the case of Rajathi
vs Ganesan 1999 SC, it was held that keeping or living with a concubine are extreme
forms of adultery.
6. If the husband has ceased to be a Hindu by converting to another religion.
7. For any other reasonable cause. In the case of Kesharbai vs Haribhan 1974 Mah, it
was held that any cause due to which husband's request of restitution of conjugal rights
can be denied could be a good cause for claiming a separate residence as well as
maintenance. In the case of Laxmi vs Maheshwar 1985 Orrisa, it was held that if the
 husband fails to obey the order of restitution of conjugal rights, he is liable to pay
maintenance and separate residence

Section 18(3) says that a wife is not eligible for separate residence and maintenance if she is
unchaste or has ceased to be a Hindu.

In the case of Dattu vs Tarabai 1985 Bombay, it was held that mere cohabitation does not
by itself terminate the order of maintenance passed under 18(2). It depends on whether the
cause of such an order still exists.

Maintenance (Alimony) under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Various rights have been attributed to Hindu wife and husband on matrimonial issues under
the Hindu Marriage Act. Yet on few issues the rights of wife and husband are different from
each other but on many issues both the spouses stand on equal footing. Right of alimony is
also one of them.

Alimony means the allowances which husband or wife by court order pays to other spouse for
maintenance while they are separated or after they are divorced (permanent alimony) or
temporarily, pending a suit for divorce (pendente lite). The principle is that one who is unable
to maintain oneself, has a right to be maintained. The object is not to publish but to make
realize one’s legal liability, to provide for those who are unable to support themselves, to
make the weaker section of the society to exist the live, to prevent destitution on public
grounds and on the basis of moral support as well, the subject is legally acknowledged.

Maintenance Pendente Lite:

The object of enacting the provision for maintenance and expenses during the pendency of
the proceeding in Section 24 is that a wife or husband, who has no independent income
sufficient for her or his support or enough to meet necessary expenses of the proceedings,
may not be handicapped. So the doctrine of pendente lite and permanent alimony is based on
economic tutelage of a spouse. It aims at administering justice and maintaining equilibrium
between the parties.

This section applies to both husband and wife equally. Law has placed both the spouses on
the same footing for this purpose.

The power of the court of ordering alimony pendente lite in a pending proceeding for
matrimonial relief has been provided by Sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The liability is
on the person who initiates the proceedings to maintain the opposite party during the
pendency of the proceedings if the opposite party is unable to maintain herself and to meet
the expenses of the proceedings.

In order of alimony pendente lite should be supported by reasons and the applicant is to
establish that he or she has no independent income sufficient for his or her support and for
necessary expenses of the proceeding or if he or she has income the nature of quantum of it,
the income, of the respondent of the application for alimony and the quantum thereof, the
nature and extent of applicant’s needs both for maintenance and expenses of proceedings.
The discretion in the matter of granting maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation is to
be exercised on sound legal principles. If the applicant has no independent means, he or she is
entitled to interim maintenance and expenses unless good cause is shown for depriving him or
her of it. The matters that may properly be considered in this connection are:

(i) whether applicant is being supported by an adulterer, and

(ii) whether the respondent has not sufficient means.

Thus, where the wife was prepared to go and live with the husband but the husband did not
wish to keep her with him on the ground of her inability of consummate the marriage the wife
is entitled to maintenance. The fact that the petitioning spouse is maintained by his or her
parents is no ground to deprive the petitioner of his or her maintenance and expenses of
litigation. For considering the application for grant of interim maintenance, only independent
income of the petitioning spouse or the conduct of her is material.

The expression ‘sufficient’ in the collocation of the word ‘sufficient’ means for his or her
support. ‘Sufficient’ is not ‘some’. The word ‘sufficient’ connotes that the income of the
applicant must be such which would be sufficient for a normal person for his or her
sustenance as well as to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. So the fact that the
wife sits in her father’s shop and earns a paltry sum by knitting and by tuition is not relevant
in deciding the question of alimony pendente lite, neither the fact that the father of the wife is
suporting her nor her refusal to live with the husband could be any ground for denial of
maintenance under Sec. 24. The question whether the wife is guilty of desertion cannot be
decided at the time of passing order of maintenance pendente lite.

It is noticeable that Sec. 24 only refers to income and not other property. So in case of
alimony pendente lite other property of the spouses should not enter judicial consideration.
Therefore immovable property yielding no income cannot be considered. Only the income
out of it received by the applicant can enter judicial consideration.

To have almony pendente lite it is not necessary that petitioners should have no income of her
or his own. If the income of the petitioners is found by court to be insufficient to support
her/him the court may order the other party to pay to the petitioner an allowance monthly and
litigation expenses. Even if the petitioner fails to aver that she has no source of income the
petition is not liable to be dismissed. The word sufficient is a relative term and has to be
considered on facts of each case.

The words “wife having no independent income insufficient for her support” suggests that
income of the wife must be independent and must be sufficient for her support. So, even if the
wife’s parents are affluent, the wife has no independent income of her sufficient to support
her is entitled to maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. The plea of having no
job when the husband is qualified and he refuses several offers of job on the pretext that it
would not suit him is not available as a defence against a petition for alimony pendente lite by
wife.

A husband who voluntarily incapacitates himself cannot be absolved of his liability to

maintain the wife. In Sousseau Mitra v. Chandana Mitra, the husband graduate in science
and a B.Ed. coming from respectable family and able bodied capable of earning, contended
that he was earlier working as a typist-cum-clerk but had resigned and so was out of
employment. The Court held that he couldn’t avoid his liability to maintain his wife and child
by voluntarily incapacitate himself. The Court can legitimately take into consideration his
ability to earn a reasonable amount.

Alimony pendente lite and litigation expenses may be granted in any proceedings under the
Hindu Marriage Act provided other conditions for such grant are satisfied.

Section 24 does not bar proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., being separate and
independent remedies. Also by reason of Section 4(b) of Hindu Marriage Act it does not
prevail over the provisions under Cr.P.C. The amount of maintenance fixed under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. may be taken into account while awarding maintenance pendente lite.

Permanent Alimony: Section 25

Section 25 makes provisions for the grant of permanent alimony. The object of this section is
to treat both the husband and the wife on equal footing for the purpose of financial assistance
to be rendered permanently to the spouse who is poverty-stricken without having any
independent income of its own for maintenance and support. This grant of permanent alimony
and maintenance is circumscribed by two conditions. First, this grant will remain in force till
the applicant remains unmarried and pursues the chaste life. Secondly, this grant is the
personal right of the applicant and extinguishes with the death of the applicant.
This section differs from the provisions of similar legislations on this issue to the effect that
under analogous laws permanent alimony is granted only to the wife, but this section
recognizes this right for both the spouses alike following the legal principle of equality before
law. Though Section 25 does not use the expression ‘permanent alimony’ in any part of the
enactment, the marginal note to the section clearly shows that the section is intended to deal
with permanent alimony.

The concept of ‘permanent alimony’ is not an indigenous concept grown on the soil and there
was no law of divorce amongst Hindus in the country. The reason for awarding permanent
alimony to the wife seems to be that if the marriage bond which was at one time regarded as
indissoluble is to be allowed to be severed in larger interest of society, the same
considerations of public interest and social welfare also require that the wife should not be
thrown on the street but should be provided for in order that she may not be compelled to
adopt a disreputable way of life. The provision for permanent alimony is, therefore, really
incidental to the granting of a decree for judicial separation, divorce or annulment of marriage
and that also appears to be clearly the position if the language of Section 25 is looked at.

The right of permanent alimony is statutory right and as such it cannot be abridged or taken
away by any contract of the parties to that effect. Thus the husband cannot contract out nor is
the wife bound by any such contract.

It is significant to note that the relief of permanent alimony is a relief incidental to the
granting of the substantive relief by the Court in the main proceeding. It is an incidental relief
claimed in the main proceeding, though an application is necessary for claiming it. The
application is an application in the main proceeding for claiming an incidental relief
consequent upon the granting of the substantive relief by the Court.

Section 25 differs from Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Though this section confers power on the Court to order the permanent alimony and
maintenance but this power is discretionary and is exercised with reference to certain well
established principles. On the other hand, Section 18 of the H.A.M.A. does not provide any
such discretionary power and as such the Court is to pass order under this section on
determination of question of facts and questions of law. Thus, no question of judicial
discretion is involved in this matter. Further Section 4 of the HAMA, 1956 does not impliedly
repeal Section 25 of the Act. Under Section 18, husband is personally liable for his wife’s
maintenance because such right is an incident of the status of matrimony. For such right valid
marriage is a pre-condition. This right of wife is a part of our ancient law but such right does
not accrue in case of void marriage. The right may be refused if decree on restitution of
conjugal right is operating against wife.

Section 25 does not deprive the wife of her right of maintenance even if the divorce is granted
on the ground of desertion on the part of the wife. The Court can in appropriate cases grant
relief of maintenance to women from the estate of her deceased husband even though it is
found by the Court that the marriage was void. It may be noted that in sub-section (1) of
Section 25, apart from various other matters to be taken into account, the Court is also to take
into account “the conduct of the parties” when a request is made for payment of alimony and
maintenance. Sub-section (2) provides for the Court varying, modifying or rescinding any
order already passed under sub-section (1) on being satisfied that there is a change in the
circumstances of either party at any time after the order was passed under sub-section (1). But
there is another special provision contained in sub-section (3) making it obligatory on the
Court to cancel an order passed under sub-section (1), under the circumstances mentioned in
that sub-section, the Court has to cancel an order passed under Section 25(1). These
circumstances are:—

(i) The party in whose favour maintenance is awarded has remarried.

(ii) If that party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, and

(iii) If such party is the husband, that he had sexual intercourse with any women outside
wedlock.

In the context of Section 25 the expression, “only decrees” means any of the decree referred
to in the earlier provision of the Act, i.e. nullity of marriage, or of divorce passed under
Sections 9 to 14 of the Act. When the main petition is dismissed and no substantive relief is
granted under Sections 9 to 14, there is no passing of a decree as contemplated by Section 25
and the jurisdiction to make an order for maintenance under the section does not arise. The
term “any decree” in the section, however, cannot be construed to include “every decree”. In
Bhau Saheb v. Leelabai the issue involved was whether an order dismissing a wife’s petition
seeking declaration that marriage was valid can come under the return “any decree”. The
Court considered some hypothetical situation to indicate that the term “any decree” cannot be
expanded or streched too liberally to include any Court order.
It is suggested to go through the class notes also.