It is widely acknowledged in Indian society that the concept of maintenance relates more to a woman's social upholding, even though a husband may assert a number of rights that would be communicated. Both husband and wife have the legal right to request their respective maintenance because equality is upheld by Indian law. However, the grounds for a husband to initiate a maintenance lawsuit are couched in harsh terms.

What is a husband's maintenance?

• According to Article 39 of the Indian Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the State is required to implement policies that, among other things, give its citizens-men and women alike-a sufficient means of subsistence, protect childhood and youth from exploitation, and provide them with the resources and opportunities they need to grow up in a healthy and respectable manner.
   
• Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 are the two provisions that are worth addressing while talking about maintenance to husbands. Since these clauses have a gender-neutral stance, they may be used in maintenance lawsuits involving marital conflicts in which the husband is the party who feels wronged.

Case Law Regarding Husband Maintenance
The following facts were mentioned in the 2022 Bombay High Court decision in Bhagyashri v. Jagdish:

• After the wife went to court and filed for divorce in 2015, alleging cruelty on the husband's side, they were divorced. They were married on April 17, 1992. The husband requested permanent alimony from the wife in the sum of Rs 15,000 per month after the marriage ended.
• The spouse said that while she was working at a university and holding an M.A. B.Ed., he had almost little money. He specifically said that in order to support his wife in her academic endeavors, he set aside his own goals and took care of the house. He added that the divorce simply made him feel embarrassed. Additionally, the husband stated that he had no real estate and was ill.
• The wife retorted that she had a duty to support their daughter and that her husband owned a grocery store and an autorickshaw, which he rented out to augment their income.
• The judge further stated that the wife's application for interim litigation expenses under section 24 of the Act was maintainable on the husband's behalf. Therefore, until the hearing on the permanent alimony procedures, the judge ordered the husband to give her a maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000.
• The headmaster was also directed by the court to reimburse the court for the arrears.

The Court Observation

• Section 25, which permits an application for alimony at any time, was repeated by the bench. Divorce would therefore not bar the court from considering the application. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that stating that a divorce or dissolution of marriage will not result in any action being taken by either the husband or the wife will limit the application of Section 25.
• Ultimately, the bench decided that the civil court had properly granted the Section 24 petition for interim maintenance.
• Since Section 25 of the Act of 1955 is intended for destitute husbands and wives, the provisions would need to be interpreted broadly in order to salvage remedial entailments. As a result, the learned counsel's argument had no chance of success, and the judge could still consider the husband's application under Section 25.
• The husband's plea for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 was properly granted by the learned judge, and the husband received interim maintenance while the proceedings under Section 25 were still ongoing.

With a vast collection of material on a variety of legal topics compiled by the top experts in the field, Sharks of Law provides a comprehensive legal solutions facility. You can look for a lawyer who can satisfy your legal needs for an online consultation with this law business. If you have any questions that call for legal advice, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the requisite experience in every area.

Email:[email protected]
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993

References:

• https://sharksoflaw.com/advocate