ET OnlineOn August 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a demand for Rs 60,000 in monthly maintenance (alimony) from a wife who worked as a senior teacher in a reputed secondary school in New Delhi. The court held that she couldn’t claim alimony from her husband since it was proved that she had some source of income while her husband’s financial, physical and emotional conditions were visibly strained.
Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that the wife filed this maintenance (alimony) case only after she found out about her estranged husband’s second marriage and the sale of his property.
The Delhi High Court looked into this and found : “The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (wife) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.”
The Delhi High Court also uncovered more lies from the wife. Keep reading to see the legal reasoning the High Court used to rule in favour of the husband.
Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided
The Delhi High Court said:
(no part of the judge’s judgement has been altered or changed)
Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: "This judgment passed in this case for ‘interim maintenance’ under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is significant from the standpoint of grant of such interim maintenance. The law under section 24 provides that, on an application made by either the husband or the wife, the Court may grant interim maintenance to be provided by the other party during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Now, one may see this as a matter of right and entitlement."
"However, it is this very aspect that this judgment deals with and holds that the purpose of interim maintenance is to ensure that the party seeking maintenance is able meet the expenses of the proceedings while maintaining themselves without the spouse. This entitlement must not be seen as an ‘automatic entitlement’."
Smriti Jaswal, Advocate, Accord Juris LLP, says: "The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a strong reminder that maintenance is not an automatic entitlement in every dispute, but rather a support system for those who genuinely cannot sustain themselves. In many cases, particularly in old age, both spouses may be facing their own financial challenges, such as medical payments, day to day caretakers, due debts etc. which are important costs that cannot be compromised on.
This judgment acknowledges the reality of such situations. Before directing one spouse to pay the other, the court in this case has considered the entire picture and analysed the same in excruciating detail, including income, health, debts, and available support. This judgement had set the precedent that - whatever the age group maybe the goal of the Courts when deciding such cases is fairness, ensuring that help reaches those who truly need it without worsening the situation for someone already in difficulty.
This approach upholds the true intent of the law: to protect the vulnerable, not to penalise the other partner."
Anadi Mishra, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: "The Delhi High Court recently in the case of Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma, dismissed Wife’s plea for interim maintenance while emphasizing that a spouse seeking interim maintenance must prove genuine financial distress, not just a desire to maintain a previous lifestyle. The Court noted that the Respondent-husband, also in his 70s, had been unemployed since 2017 after his company became insolvent, which caused him to lose his retiral benefits and pension. The court concluded that it would be unjust to impose a financial obligation on him, especially when the wife had "adequate financial resources".
"The judgment reiterates that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not an automatic entitlement, while highlighting the need to assess both spouses' financial capacity and overall circumstances."
Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that the wife filed this maintenance (alimony) case only after she found out about her estranged husband’s second marriage and the sale of his property.
The Delhi High Court looked into this and found : “The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even. In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (wife) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.”
The Delhi High Court also uncovered more lies from the wife. Keep reading to see the legal reasoning the High Court used to rule in favour of the husband.
How did this maintenance (alimony) case start?
According to the order of Delhi High Court dated August 4, 2025, here’s the timeline of events:- March 22, 1978: The marriage happens.
- November 24, 1986: First son is born.
- May 11, 1986: Second son is born.
- 1987: Wife starts living separately from her husband with their two sons.
- 2003: A joint petition for divorce was filed by both of them.
- July 2014: Wife retires from her school teaching job.
- 2017: Husband retires from his job.
- February 24, 2021: Wife filed a petition in family court seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Husband is null and void ab initio as it is bigamy.
- February 8, 2023: Family court dismissed wife’s application under Section 24 for interim maintenance of Rs 60,000 per month, and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 1,00,000.
Wife filed the alimony case only when she came to know about the husband’s second marriage and property deal
The Delhi High Court said:- “The record reflects that the Appellant (wife) has been residing separately of her own volition for over three decades, and during this extended period of time, never felt the need to seek any relief from the Courts or assistance even.
- "In fact, as is evident from the pleadings, it appears that the present action has been actuated by the Appellant (husband) upon the gaining of the knowledge of the alleged second marriage and the transaction in respect of the sale of the property.”
Wife has adequate financial resources to support her
Delhi HC said:- “It stands placed on record that the Appellant (wife) is in possession of matured LIC policies in her name. The Appellant (wife) is also residing with her two sons, both of whom appear to be gainfully employed. Though there appears to be some whatsapp chats of the year 2020 and 2021 where one of the sons was asking for money, the income affidavit of the appellant suggests that both sons are having independent income.”
- “It was also stated by the counsel that both sons are independently earning. In light of these facts, it appears that the Appellant (wife) has adequate financial resources and support systems available to her.”
Wife is lying about her finances
Delhi HC said:- The Appellant’s (wife) claim that she is sustaining herself on donations from her former students does not appear to be supported by any evidence. The fact that various sums were deposited by unrelated persons, without necessary proof in support, cuts no ice in favour of either of the parties.
- However, it clearly leads us to conclude that the Appellant (wife) has some source of income to enable her to take care of herself.
Delhi High Court’s investigation: Husband is living off loans given by brother and friend
Question of law answered by Delhi High Court: “The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the rejection of the claim for maintenance pendente lite (during litigation) and expenses of proceedings made by the Appellant under Section 24 of the Act.”Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided
The Delhi High Court said:
(no part of the judge’s judgement has been altered or changed)
- “This Court notes the submission advanced on behalf of Respondent (husband), who is stated to be more than 70 years of age, rendering him unfit for any gainful employment.”
- “It is further brought on record that the Respondent (husband) was previously employed with Reliance Communication till 2017; however, owing to the company’s financial collapse and subsequent insolvency proceedings, he was deprived of all retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues.”
- “In addition, as evident from the reply to the appeal filed by the Respondent (husband) before this Court, it emerges that the Respondent has had to borrow substantial sums - Rs 10,00,000 from his brother and Rs 13,00,000 from a friend, for the purpose of meeting his basic living expenses. These liabilities, incurred solely for sustenance, remain outstanding and unpaid, owing to the Respondent’s (husband) continuing financial incapacity.”
Delhi High Court final judgement: No maintenance for wife
Delhi HC said:- “In light of the above authoritative pronouncements and in the absence of any persuasive evidence justifying the Appellant’s (wife) claim of the interim maintenance, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent (husband) should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained.”
- “In our considered opinion, the income of the Appellant (wife) is sufficient to maintain herself, and as such, the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Appellant (wife) under Section 24 of the Act.”
- “We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order do not tantamount to expression of any opinion on the merits of the case that is pending before the learned Family Court.”
What did Delhi High Court say about Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?
The High Court said:- Before embarking upon the merits of the appeal, it is apposite to examine the legislative intent underlying Section 24 of the Act. The primary object of this provision is to ensure that in matrimonial proceedings, the spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain themselves or to meet the expenses of the proceedings is not placed at a procedural disadvantage.
- The law ensures that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain.
- The invocation of Section 24 is not to be construed as an automatic entitlement. The discretion conferred upon the Court under this provision is wide, and must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the financial standing, independent income, and overall circumstances of both parties. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur6 , and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain.
What might be the significance of this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various legal experts about the significance of this judgement. Here's what they said:Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: "This judgment passed in this case for ‘interim maintenance’ under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is significant from the standpoint of grant of such interim maintenance. The law under section 24 provides that, on an application made by either the husband or the wife, the Court may grant interim maintenance to be provided by the other party during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Now, one may see this as a matter of right and entitlement."
"However, it is this very aspect that this judgment deals with and holds that the purpose of interim maintenance is to ensure that the party seeking maintenance is able meet the expenses of the proceedings while maintaining themselves without the spouse. This entitlement must not be seen as an ‘automatic entitlement’."
Smriti Jaswal, Advocate, Accord Juris LLP, says: "The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a strong reminder that maintenance is not an automatic entitlement in every dispute, but rather a support system for those who genuinely cannot sustain themselves. In many cases, particularly in old age, both spouses may be facing their own financial challenges, such as medical payments, day to day caretakers, due debts etc. which are important costs that cannot be compromised on.
This judgment acknowledges the reality of such situations. Before directing one spouse to pay the other, the court in this case has considered the entire picture and analysed the same in excruciating detail, including income, health, debts, and available support. This judgement had set the precedent that - whatever the age group maybe the goal of the Courts when deciding such cases is fairness, ensuring that help reaches those who truly need it without worsening the situation for someone already in difficulty.
This approach upholds the true intent of the law: to protect the vulnerable, not to penalise the other partner."
Anadi Mishra, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: "The Delhi High Court recently in the case of Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma, dismissed Wife’s plea for interim maintenance while emphasizing that a spouse seeking interim maintenance must prove genuine financial distress, not just a desire to maintain a previous lifestyle. The Court noted that the Respondent-husband, also in his 70s, had been unemployed since 2017 after his company became insolvent, which caused him to lose his retiral benefits and pension. The court concluded that it would be unjust to impose a financial obligation on him, especially when the wife had "adequate financial resources".
"The judgment reiterates that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not an automatic entitlement, while highlighting the need to assess both spouses' financial capacity and overall circumstances."
( Originally published on Aug 10, 2025 )
