Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act

1. Introduction

- Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a provision that addresses the issue of maintenance pendente lite, which refers to the financial support provided to a dependent spouse during the
pendency of a matrimonial proceeding.

2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24

- Section 24 applies to matrimonial proceedings initiated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Applicability
- Maintenance for the wife
- Maintenance amount
- A similar provision in the Special Marriage Act
- Interim maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code
- Scope of application
- Challenging the validity of marriage

3. Goal of Section 24 of the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act

- Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 is to give the claimant spouse financial support so they can continue the procedures and support themselves.
- Special Marriage Act (1954), Criminal Procedure Code (1973)
- Case Law 1- Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977)
- Case Law 2- Rajendran v. Gajalakshmi (1985)
- Case Law 3- Mukan Kuwar v. Ajit Chand (1958)

4. Children's maintenance is mandated by Section 24 of the HMA of 1955.

- Case Law 1- Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997)

5. When may a Section 24 application be made

- Case Law 1- Chagan Lal v. Sakkha Devi (1974), an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA, 1955.
- The Bombay High Court ruled in Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996).

6. Conclusion

- The court has discretion in determining the maintenance amount based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Introduction

The expenditures of the proceedings and support pendente lite are discussed in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Maintenance in this context refers to providing a dependent spouse with their basic requirements, and pendente lite is a Latin phrase that means "while an action is pending" or "while litigation continues." Therefore, it is clear that "maintenance pendente lite" refers to paying the spouse's living expenses and financial support while a lawsuit is ongoing (either the woman or the husband). Describe Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 in more detail.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24

In any proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, "HMA,1955"), if the court determines that either the husband or the wife lacks an independent source of income to support themselves and cover the necessary costs of the proceeding, the court may, upon the proposal of such dependent spouse, order the other spouse to pay -

• The costs associated with the case
• The amount per month during such procedures that the court judges appropriate in light of the combined income of the spouses.

With the important exception that alimony pendente lite (alimony during the pendency of the litigation) can only be claimed by the wife under this Act and does not apply to the husband, a comparable provision has been created in Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954. Additionally, the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code's Section 125 discusses the husband's obligation to pay the wife interim maintenance.

In circumstances of restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9), judicial separation (Section 10), null marriages (Section 11), voidable marriages (Section 12), and divorce, the provision of interim maintenance under Section 24 is applicable (Section 13). Regardless of who initiated the legal action, either the husband or the wife may request interim support for themselves or their child. One party to the action must not have enough independent income to maintain themselves and the necessary costs of the proceeding in order for interim maintenance to be granted. Even though the Respondent contests the validity of the marriage factum, the court may nonetheless utilise the authority granted to it by Section 24.

Goal of Section 24 of the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act

The claimant spouse's personal support as well as the necessary costs of the case are covered by the maintenance pendente lite. The fundamental goal of sustenance pendente lite and expenditures under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 is to give the claimant spouse financial support so they can continue the procedures and support themselves.

It is important to understand that under the HMA, 1955, pendente lite maintenance is given to either spouse, meaning either spouse may request support. Other laws, such as the Special Marriage Act (1954), Criminal Procedure Code (1973), etc., however, only allow the woman to request maintenance; the husband is not permitted to do so.

In the case of Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977), it was determined that Section 24's purpose is to give the indigent spouse financial support so they can maintain themselves while the proceedings are ongoing and have enough money to continue the litigation or defend themselves without suffering unduly due to a lack of resources. The court's authority under Section 24 of the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act

The amount of interim maintenance that a spouse may be forced to pay to the other on reasonable grounds can be determined by the courts at their discretion. The court weighs both the income of the husband who requested interim support and the income of the spouse who must cover those costs and interim maintenance as part of its decision-making process.

The Madras High Court ruled in Rajendran v. Gajalakshmi (1985) that interim assistance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 shall be a "reasonable" amount. The fact that the wife's brother earns a living was further ruled to be irrelevant and inadmissible as a reason to deny her interim maintenance under Section 24. As a result, the Madras High Court deemed the amount of interim assistance of Rupees 150 per month as directed by the lower court to be reasonable.

An essential issue that will affect the court's discretion is the behaviour of the parties. In accordance with Section 24, the court will not disregard the parties' actions. For instance, the court may refuse to provide a spouse any remedy under Section 24 if they end the cohabitation via their own wrongdoing. It's important to remember that the court's discretion is judicial in character, not arbitrary. Given the goal of the Act and in accordance with the fundamental principles of matrimonial law, this judicial power must be used within the parameters of Section 24. It was decided in Mukan Kuwar v. Ajit Chand (1958) that the court's discretionary power must be based on solid legal foundations rather than on whim and humour.

Children's maintenance is mandated by Section 24 of the HMA of 1955.

The major goal of Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 is to make it possible to pay the claimant spouse's interim maintenance obligations as well as the litigation costs. However, in some rare circumstances when the request for interim maintenance has been approved by the court, the court may impose maintenance even for children who reside with and are dependent upon the party making the request.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997) that clauses under Section 24 cannot have a narrow interpretation. Additionally, it was decided that the wife would be entitled to maintenance pendente lite for both herself and the unmarried daughter who lives with her.

When may a Section 24 application be made?

Anytime while the case is pending, a request for interim maintenance and court costs pursuant to Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, may be made. If the wife is the responder, she may apply for the grant before submitting her written statement.

According to the High Court of Rajasthan's ruling in Chagan Lal v. Sakkha Devi (1974), an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA, 1955, as well as an application for maintenance under any other matrimonial statute, must be resolved as soon as possible, in any case before the main application is resolved.

Procedure for applying Section 24 of the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act

An issue is considered under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 as a summary inquiry rather than a full-fledged trial at length. The court cannot refuse to grant interim assistance and the cost of the procedures under Section 24 only on the grounds that it feels the applicant is unlikely to prevail in the dispute.

The Bombay High Court ruled in Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (1996) that the likelihood that a marriage will be deemed null shall not be a reason to deny interim maintenance and the costs of the proceeding to the spouse requesting such interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955. According to the proviso attached to Section 24, the petition for the reimbursement of interim maintenance and costs associated with the proceedings must be resolved as quickly as possible within sixty days after the day notice was served on the spouse.

Conclusion

According to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, in any proceeding under the HMA, 1955, if a court believes that either the husband or the wife has no independent source of income to support him or her and the required expenses of the proceeding, the court may, on the application of such dependent spouse, order the other spouse to pay the expenses of the proceeding and the monthly sum during such proceeding as the Court finds reasonable with regard to the circumstances of the case.