Delhi High Court denies Rs 60,000 alimony to first wife, citing her financial independence and husband’s debt burden, and age. Key ruling on maintenance and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On August 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a wife’s demand for Rs 60,000 per month in interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ruling that she was financially capable of supporting herself and that her estranged husband’s economic and health conditions were visibly strained.
The court found that the wife, a retired senior teacher from a reputed secondary school in New Delhi, filed for alimony only after learning of her husband’s second marriage and property sale, more than three decades after the separation.
Case Timeline
The couple married on March 22, 1978, and had two sons, the first born on November 24, 1986, and the second on May 11, 1986. In 1987, the wife began living separately with both children. Years later, in 2003, they filed a joint divorce petition.
The wife retired from her school teaching job in July 2014, while the husband retired in 2017 from Reliance Communications without receiving a pension or settlement dues. On February 24, 2021, the wife approached the court challenging her husband’s alleged second marriage as bigamy. The Family Court, on February 8, 2023, rejected her plea for interim maintenance of Rs 60,000 per month and Rs 1 lakh towards litigation expenses.
Finally, on August 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed her appeal.
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning: Rejected the Wife’s Claim
The Court observed that the wife was financially self-sufficient, as she owned matured LIC policies and lived with her two adult sons, both of whom were gainfully employed, and had failed to provide credible proof for her claim of surviving solely on donations from former students.
It also noted that she had lived separately for over thirty years without seeking court intervention and had only demanded alimony after learning of her husband’s alleged remarriage and property sale, suggesting ulterior motives.
In contrast, the husband, 70 years old, was unfit for gainful employment, had been denied retirement benefits due to the financial collapse of his employer, and was surviving on substantial loans, Rs10 lakh from his brother and Rs 13 lakh from a friend, just to meet his basic living expenses.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, dismissing the wife’s appeal and refusing interim maintenance. It emphasised that the wife had sufficient means, while the husband’s strained financial, physical, and emotional condition made it unjust to impose further obligations on him.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the interim maintenance appeal and did not prejudice the main matrimonial case still pending.
Delhi HC on Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
The Court clarified that the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to ensure that a genuinely dependent spouse can meet basic sustenance and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings.
It is not an automatic right, and applicants must demonstrate genuine financial distress, as the provision is neither intended to equalise lifestyles nor to substitute other maintenance laws. The grant of relief under this section lies within the Court’s judicial discretion, which requires assessing the financial standing, independent income, and overall circumstances of both parties.
The High Court referred to Supreme Court rulings such as,
- Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain,
- Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur,
- Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain.
Case Title:
YASHWANI VERMA Versus VIRENDER VERMA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023 & CM APPL. 30959/2023 (for delay)
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Alimony
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES