Time and again, the courts in India have faced the challenge of determining the appropriate quantum of alimony and maintenance in matrimonial disputes. Hindu law has undergone a significant transformation from viewing marriage as a sacred and indissoluble bond to recognising divorce as a legal reality under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The HMA introduced both fault-based divorce under Section 13 and divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B.

With the recognition of divorce came the necessity for financial safeguards. These safeguards find expression in interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA, maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), and under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (BNSS). While divorce may dissolve the marital bond, the law cannot divide affection. It must, however, divide the livelihood. These provisions function as measures of social justice, ensuring that a spouse is not rendered economically vulnerable following a separation.

Judicial guidance has played a crucial role in shaping this area of law. There is a shift towards a gender-neutral and a need-based approach while granting maintenance or alimony, as quantum is not just about numbers, but it is also about fairness, balance and survival.

In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017), the Supreme Court held that a self-sufficient spouse cannot claim maintenance, whereas in Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi (2011), the Court recognised the husband’s right to claim alimony when the wife was financially stronger. Similarly, in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) the Supreme Court clarified that a wife’s earning does not bar maintenance if it is inadequate to sustain her prior standard of living. In Shakti v. Anita (2025), stark educational and financial disparities between spouses influenced the quantum of alimony, reflecting equity-based reasoning. Likewise, in Parveen Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2025), the Supreme Court imposed a one-time settlement of several crores, stressing full income disclosure and fair rehabilitation of the wife.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, divorce signifies the legal dissolution of marriage, terminating the rights and obligations arising from the martial relationship. Section 13 of the Act enumerates the grounds for divorce, including cruelty, continuous desertion for a period of two years, conversion to another religion, incurable unsoundness of mind, venereal disease, renunciation of the world, and presumption of death.

Alimony is a financial arrangement whereby one spouse is required to provide monetary support to the other following divorce. Depending on the facts of the case, courts may award permanent alimony either as a lump sum payment or as periodic instalments under Section 25 of the HMA. Additionally, Section 24 of the HMA empowers courts to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, ensuring that a spouse without an independent source of income is not placed at a disadvantage in litigation.

Alimony is justified by the fairness principle. Marriage frequently leaves one spouse economically dependent on the other. The law seeks to mitigate this disadvantage by ensuring financial support even after dissolution of marriage.

The concept of maintenance is broader than alimony and is not confined to post-divorce support. It includes the legal right of a wife to claim maintenance during the subsistence of marriage and even after judicial separation. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, entitles a Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.

Further, Section 144 of the BNSS transcends religious boundaries and entitles a wife, including a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself, to seek maintenance from her husband. Maintenance law thus operates as a social security mechanism, preventing destitution and ensuring dignity and livelihood.

Determination of the amount of maintenance or alimony has been left to judicial discretion, guided by the principles of equity and fairness. Courts typically consider factors such as the social status and standard of living of the parties, income and assets of both spouses, their liabilities and dependents, and the overall conduct of the parties. Although there is no rigid formula for computation.

In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), the Supreme Court held that permanent alimony must be fair and reasonable, taking into account the parties' status, the husband's salary, and his financial ability.

A significant milestone was achieved in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), where Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines mandating the disclosure of assets and liabilities by both spouses. The Court observed that:

“The maintenance award must be realistic and reasonable, staying away from both extremes. In other words, the amount of maintenance given to the wife shouldn't be so high that it becomes burdensome and intolerable for the Respondent, nor should it be so low that it forces the wife into poverty. It is necessary to determine whether the amount is sufficient to allow the wife to live comfortably.”

The decision also emphasised the need for consistency and uniformity across courts to curb arbitrariness in maintenance awards across courts. Thus, the mechanism for quantification is both case-specific and principle-driven, ensuring that maintenance is neither oppressive to the payer nor inadequate for the claimant.

In Rinku Baheti vs Sandesh Sharda; the parties were in their second marriage when disputes arose. The husband, a US citizen, sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife, in turn, filed a transfer petition and two criminal cases against him and his family members, leading to the husband's arrest and month-long custody. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the divorce, exercising its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, and ordered the husband to pay a one-time permanent alimony of ₹10 crores to the wife.

Thus, time and time again it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that there is no straight jacket formulae to determine the actual quantifiable amount of maintenance that can be granted.

One of the contemporary challenges in maintenance law arises when the wife is financially independent or earns more than the husband. Traditionally, the law proceeded on the assumption that women were economically dependent on men; however, social realities have changed considerably.

In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017), the Supreme Court held that maintenance cannot be awarded to a spouse who is capable of sustaining herself. However, this was nuanced in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018), where the court clarified that the mere earning by a wife does not disentitle her from maintenance; the crucial question is whether her income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living that she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. Interestingly, the law under Section 25 of the HMA is gender-neutral, and even husbands can claim alimony if the wife is economically superior.

In Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi (2011), the Court recognised the husband’s right to claim maintenance support where the wife was financially superior. The Court emphasised that Section 24 of the HMA, is meant to support a spouse who has no independent income to sustain himself or herself and to enable them to live in a status similar to that enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

In the case of Chaturbhuj vs Sitabai, the Supreme Court held that the phrase "unable to maintain herself" does not require a wife to be completely destitute. A wife can claim maintenance even if she earns, provided her income is insufficient to meet her reasonable needs.  

Contrasting outcomes are evident in cases such as Shakti vs. Anita, where stark educational and economic disparities influenced the Court’s decision. The wife possessing advanced academic qualifications was granted custody of the son, while the husband, a Head Constable, was granted custody of the daughter. The Court directed the husband to create a Fixed Deposit for the son worth ₹5 lakh and awarded ₹10 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife.

In Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, the Supreme Court dealt with the deliberate concealment of assets by the husband. Taking into account the wife’s accustomed standard of living and the husband’s substantial financial resources, the Court ordered a onetime settlement of ₹5 crores for the wife and ₹1 crore for the son’s financial security, holding the arrangement to be just, fair and reasonable.

The jurisprudence on divorce, alimony, and maintenance under Hindu law has undoubtedly progressed, but further reforms are needed to ensure clarity, uniformity, and fairness. Years pass by, just to determine alimony. Even while Indian jurisprudence on maintenance and alimony has shifted towards a more equal, need-based, and gender-neutral approach, much more needs to be done. A more uniform, transparent, and progressive structure is needed to ensure that maintenance achieves a balance between justice and equality in every circumstance.

To curb the multiplicity of proceedings and bring coherence to maintenance jurisprudence, the following reforms merit consideration;

First, the enactment of a comprehensive and uniform statutory framework on maintenance is required to harmonise overlapping provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Second, statutory guidelines for the quantification of alimony must be framed, supported by strict enforcement of mandatory income and asset disclosure, along with deterrent penalties for concealment or misrepresentation.

Third, with increasing financial independence among women, the law must continue to evolve towards a need-based and gender-neutral approach, recognising that husbands may also be entitled to maintenance in deserving cases.

Fourth, to prevent protracted litigation from defeating the very purpose of maintenance, proceedings must be made time-bound, with clearly defined timelines for adjudication and enforcement.

Finally, greater integration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in matrimonial disputes would reduce adversarial litigation and promote outcomes that are fair, dignified, and expeditious.

About the author: Pallavi Tayal Chadda is an Advocate-on-record and an Associate Partner at KNM & Partners.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.