Maintenance provisions under Hindu Marriage Act are gender-neutral: Bombay High Court

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deal with maintenance, are gender-neutral provisions and that either a husband or a wife can seek maintenance from their spouse under the same [Chanda Rathod vs Prakashsingh Rathod]..A bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke said that the requirement under the provisions is that the person seeking maintenance does not have sufficient income to support himself/ herself."Sections 24 and 25 make provision for maintenance to a party who has no independent income sufficient for his or her support, and necessary expenses. This is a gender neutral provision where either the wife or the husband may claim maintenance. The pre-requisite is that the person, who is claiming maintenance does not have independent income which is sufficient for her or his support during the pendency of the lis," the Court said.It further opined that the provision of Section 24 that entitles a spouse to seek maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceedings is a benevolent provision."Section 24 is enacted to provide relief by way of maintenance and litigation expenses to a spouse unable to maintain itself during the pendency of the proceedings; it is benevolent provision. Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are enacted with the object of removing the handicap of a wife or husband with no independent income sufficient for living or meeting litigation expenses; such a relief can be granted to the husband as well, who may also be deprived of the same," the Court said in the order passed on September 19..The Hindu Marriage Act, the bench stated, is a complete code which provides for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from a marriage between two Hindus. .The bench was hearing an appeal filed by a wife challenging a decision of a Family Court in Nanded.It was her argument that the Family Court didn't decide her application filed under Section 24 and instead directly decided the divorce petition filed by her husband. She pointed out that the Family Court in its judgment had reasoned that she was absent for several hearings and, thus, the divorce was decreed in her husband's favor. The husband, on the other hand, highlighted the fact that the wife herself left the matrimonial house way back in 2005 after subjecting him and his family to cruelty. He pointed out that the Family Court had initially rejected her plea for maintenance and had only ordered him to pay ₹3,000 towards his children, who are in the wife's custody. .Having heard the contentions, the bench noted that it was not the wife alone who was absent for hearings but the husband was also guilty of the same on several occasions. It also noted that the wife's plea under Section 24 of the Act wasn't decided within the timeline of 60 days."The opportunity of defending herself was also not given to the appellant. Admittedly, the provision under Section 24 is a benevolent provision enacted with the object to provide relief by way of maintenance and litigation expenses to the spouse. In these circumstances, it is necessary to give proper opportunity to the wife to defend the grounds of divorce by adducing the evidence. Therefore, this is a fit case to remand back the matter to the Family Court for deciding the proceedings afresh," the bench added. It, therefore, ordered the Family Court to consider the divorce petition afresh by granting opportunity to both the husband as well as the wife to adduce evidence and support their clams. A further directive was issued to decide the wife's Section 24 application as per law. .Advocate Shilpa Tapadia appeared for the Wife. Advocates Ravikumar Tiwari and CA Joshi represented the Husband. .[Read Judgment]