Section 24 HMA | Interim Maintenance Cannot Be Awarded For Period During Which Applicant Was Gainfully Employed: Delhi High Court

"Parties contesting an application filed under Section 24 HMA tend to conceal their real income and earning capacity. A Court is not duty bound to accept the alleged income of a party and may draw adverse inferences from other relevant circumstances and on the basis of material placed before it." Delhi High Court, in a ruling dated 16 September 2026, held that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cannot be awarded for a period during which the applicant-spouse was admittedly gainfully employed.

A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that while courts must ensure financial support for a spouse lacking independent income, they cannot disregard the period of the applicant's own financial independence.

The parties were married in October 2015 and have a daughter. Following marital discord, the respondent-wife initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA and filed an application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24. The Family Court directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 5,000 per month from the date of the application's filing, i.e., January 2021. The appellant challenged this order, contending that the wife was employed at a Bata showroom from March 2020 until June 2024 and was thus not entitled to maintenance for the period she was earning.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether maintenance could be granted retrospectively for a period during which the applicant was gainfully employed. Additionally, the court examined whether the Family Court correctly assessed the appellant’s income based on minimum wage notifications despite the appellant being employed in a different state.

Court Reaffirms Power to Estimate Income

The bench emphasized that proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA are summary in nature. Referring to the Supreme Court’s mandate in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun, the court noted that spouses often suppress their true income, necessitating a degree of "guesswork" by the judiciary. The court clarified that mathematical precision is secondary to the object of providing essential financial support to an aggrieved spouse.

No Mathematical Exactitude in Assessing Income

The court reiterated that where income is not transparently disclosed, particularly in the unorganized sector, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences. Citing Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, the judges noted that tax avoidance is common and that courts must take a general view of the parties' financial capacity, standard of living, and the reasonable wants of the claimant to ensure justice is served.

Assessment of Earning Capacity

Regarding the appellant's challenge to the income assessment, the court rejected the plea that minimum wage notifications from Delhi were inapplicable because the appellant worked in Haryana. The bench found that the prevalent minimum wages in the two regions were comparable. Furthermore, it observed that a self-serving salary certificate issued by the appellant’s father could not be treated as conclusive evidence of income, as it remained unsupported by cogent documentation.

Correction of Maintenance Commencement Date

The court found significant merit in the appellant's argument regarding the respondent’s period of employment. Since the respondent admitted in her pleadings and affidavits to being employed as a sales helper until June 2024, the court held it was erroneous to grant maintenance from January 2021. The bench underscored that the purpose of Section 24 is to provide sustenance to a spouse without independent means of support.

"Keeping in view the respondent’s employment from the period of March 2020 till June 2024, it is held that she is not entitled to the interim maintenance with effect from the date of filing of her application, i.e., 08.01.2021 up till June 2024 as granted by the learned Family Court."

The High Court modified the Family Court's order, restricting the maintenance entitlement to commence from 1 July 2024, the date the respondent became unemployed. The appellant was directed to continue the payments from that date forward, while all other terms of the original order remained in force.

This judgment serves as a vital precedent for limiting the liability of a paying spouse to periods of actual financial dependency. By ensuring that interim maintenance is not awarded for periods where the applicant was gainfully employed, the court has reinforced the principle that Section 24 of the HMA is intended to act as a safety net rather than a windfall.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026