Section 24 Is Not a Tool to Enrich the Affluent: Madras High Court Quashes Maintenance to Self-Sufficient Wife

“Sustenance under Section 24 is to ensure basic comfort, not luxury or strategic deprivation” — Madras High Court delivered a pivotal ruling in which   reasserts the boundaries of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Justice P.B. Balaji held that interim maintenance is not a statutory right conferred on every litigating spouse, but a discretionary relief that must be granted only upon clear proof of financial insufficiency.

The Court struck down the Family Court’s direction to the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife during the pendency of divorce proceedings, emphasizing that “when a spouse is financially independent, self-sustaining and affluent, Section 24 cannot be invoked merely by withholding assets or income tactically.”

The judgment is a stern reminder that the law of maintenance cannot be used as a sword in matrimonial litigation where the claimant is neither destitute nor deprived.

“Maintenance Cannot Be Claimed by Suppression or Self-Restraint”: Court Condemns Wife’s Strategic Withholding of Dividends

The dispute arose in the context of matrimonial proceedings pending before the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, where the wife had sought ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance for herself and an additional amount for her son, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

While the husband, Dr. C. Amarnath, voluntarily complied with the order to pay maintenance to the son and further contributed ₹2.77 lakhs towards his NEET coaching, he contested the award of interim maintenance to the wife. He contended that she was not only self-sufficient but also affluent, holding properties worth crores and receiving substantial dividends as a Director in a diagnostic company.

The respondent-wife, Dr. J. Remabarathi, did not dispute the income but argued that all amounts were being spent on their son's education and thus she was still entitled to support. However, the Court found her conduct suspect — particularly her act of approaching the National Company Law Tribunal to restrain the release of dividends due to her — which the Court interpreted as a deliberate move to qualify for maintenance.

“The conduct of the respondent/wife is clearly malafide and only in order to make the claim for maintenance against the petitioner, the respondent has not only suppressed the huge income received by her as dividends from the Company, but also approached the NCLT and sought an order for not releasing the amounts payable to her,” observed the Court.

“Sufficient Income and Ownership of Valuable Assets Nullify Entitlement under Section 24”

Justice Balaji minutely examined the wife’s financial standing and found that she had received ₹15,18,750 in FY 2021-22, ₹16,20,000 in FY 2022-23, and again ₹16,20,000 in FY 2023-24 through RTGS transfers as dividends. This was in addition to her ownership of 32 cents of land in Thiruporur and a Chennai property which she later re-settled in her father's name during the litigation.

“The petitioner is having landed property in Thiruporur in the outskirts of the city of Chennai where also the property prices have risen considerably,” noted the Court while rejecting the justification of transferring assets as part of familial re-alignment.

The Court underscored that such financial capability directly defeats the purpose of Section 24, which is designed to prevent destitution, not to uphold parallel standards of luxury.

“Section 24 is only for providing interim maintenance to the wife to enable her to get sufficient income to live a comfortable lifestyle. I do not see that the respondent is not possessed of such sufficient income already, warranting further monies from the petitioner,” the Court said categorically.

“Capable of Earning Is Not Enough—But Already Earning Is Conclusive”: High Court Applies Supreme Court Precedent with Distinction

Though the wife relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Shailja v. Kobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the High Court distinguished both precedents. It noted that those judgments concerned situations where the wife was capable of earning or had insufficient means.

“Even applying the ratio laid down in Rajnesh’s case, I do not find that the respondent requires any further amounts by way of interim maintenance... in view of the aforesaid discussions regarding her holding of immovable properties as well as the substantial income by way of dividends,” concluded the Court.

The Family Court’s award was criticized for being “mechanical,” lacking any proper consideration of the material on record about the wife's independent income or assets.

“The Family Court, after taking into account the assets and liabilities filed by both the parties, has only focused its attention on the requirement of the son, A. Anirudh and without any reasons... has straight away proceeded to award ₹30,000 to the wife as well,” the High Court noted in disapproval.

With this judgment, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed that interim maintenance is not to be granted in a perfunctory manner, especially where the spouse is financially stable. The object of Section 24 is to prevent hardship, not to provide windfall gains by manipulating corporate positions or restraining income intentionally.

Justice P.B. Balaji’s decision reiterates that “maintenance pendente lite” is a judicial safeguard, not a lever of economic advantage in matrimonial warfare.

The Family Court’s order was accordingly set aside insofar as it concerned the wife. However, the direction to pay maintenance and educational expenses for the child was upheld, and the Court appreciated the husband’s compliance in this regard.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2025