Exploring the Legal Framework for Husband’s Maintenance Rights in India

Indian law is based on equality before the law. Both husband and wife are entitled to claim maintenance according to the law, but there are some riders on the husband’s right to claim maintenance.

In the realm of Indian legal provisions concerning maintenance, there has been a prevailing perception that the scales tip in favour of wives. The widely held belief is that maintenance for wives is a well-recognized and predominant concept in Indian society. However, the question remains: What about the entitlement of husbands to claim maintenance?

In India, where the principle of equality before the law is upheld, both husbands and wives have the right to seek maintenance in accordance with legal provisions. Nevertheless, there exist certain conditions and considerations that affect a husband’s ability to claim maintenance.

Maintenance can be defined as the provision of essential life necessities, encompassing sustenance, clothing, housing, education, and medical expenses. In the context of a marital relationship, it pertains to the financial support provided by either the wife or the husband, encompassing all fundamental life requisites.

“The entitlement of husbands to seek maintenance from their wives is established within the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.”

“Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the maintenance of Pendente Lite and the expenses of the proceeding to the husband, and Section 25 provides the husband with the right to get permanent alimony and maintenance,”.

Within the scope of Section 24, a “deserving man” lacking a self-sustaining income to cover his living expenses and the necessary costs of legal proceedings has the right to request maintenance from his wife, provided she possesses the means to meet this obligation.

Section 25, on the other hand, addresses the provision for permanent alimony and maintenance to husbands. It places a responsibility on the wife to provide either a lump-sum amount or periodic payments, considering the husband’s lifetime needs in light of the wife’s income and assets.

“The court can modify the order if there is any change in circumstances. For example, in the case of mutual consent divorce, if the parties agree not to claim maintenance, the court can grant maintenance according to the case’s circumstances and facts,”.

In any legal proceeding, if the court determines that either the husband or the wife, depending on the case, lacks an autonomous source of income to sustain themselves and cover the essential costs related to the proceedings, the court may, upon the petitioner’s request, whether it’s the wife or the husband, direct the respondent to bear the expenses associated with the case.

Consequently, within the framework of this Section, a deserving husband without an independent income adequate for his support and the necessary costs linked to the legal proceedings can seek financial assistance from his wife, provided she possesses the means to provide such support. However, if the husband possesses sufficient income and earning capacity, he would not be eligible to claim under this provision.

“The court must keep in mind the respondent’s and applicant’s income and other property while deciding the maintenance. If there is any change in the circumstances of either party at any time after the order is passed, the court can modify or revoke that order at the instance of either party,”

The husband’s requests must align with a reasonable standard of living and necessities. If the court deems that the husband’s claims and requirements are not justified, such claims will not be entertained.

“There are certain conditions laid down that need to be fulfilled by the husband in order to claim his right to maintenance. He can claim maintenance only when he is in dire need of it, and he proves his inability to earn. A capable person remaining idle cannot claim this right.”

As previously stated, the husband bears the responsibility of proving his case. He must demonstrate to the court that he is incapable of earning a livelihood due to a physical or mental disability, thus justifying his claim for maintenance from his wife.

In the 2017 case of Nivya V M v. Shivaparsad M K, the Kerala High Court emphasized that providing maintenance to a husband without a genuine incapacity to work would encourage idleness.

The husband’s obligation is to establish his permanent disability that prevents him from working and earning a living; only then can he seek maintenance.

In the 1992 case of Kamelandra Sawarkar v. Kamelandra, the Bombay High Court ruled that a husband should not solely rely on his wife’s income. Granting maintenance to a capable individual would foster idleness.

In the case of Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi in 2011, the trial court, based on the specific circumstances and facts of the case, determined that the wife was obligated to provide maintenance. It directed her to pay the respondent Rs 20,000/-, along with Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses, and further instructed her to provide him with a Zen car for his convenience and use.

“Many laws provide the provision of maintenance to the wife. These laws are The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; The Divorce Act, 1869; The Special Marriage Act, 1954; The Muslim Women Protection on Divorce Act, 1986; The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. But there is only one law that gives the right to claim maintenance to the husband from the wife.”.

The Hindu Marriage Act establishes gender equality in maintenance law by granting both husbands and wives the right to seek maintenance. In contrast, some other laws exclusively extend this right to wives, prompting legal challenges in the Supreme Court. Petitions have been filed against such laws, including Section 125 of the CrPC, alleging gender bias.