By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 15 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
A matrimonial case, whether for divorce, judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, can take years to finish, and a spouse without independent income cannot simply wait that long without support. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 exists for exactly this gap: it lets either spouse apply for maintenance and litigation expenses for the period the main case is pending, commonly called maintenance pendente lite, so that the economically weaker party is not forced to either abandon the litigation for lack of funds or settle on unfavourable terms out of financial desperation.
The provision is short, but the practice around it has grown considerably, particularly after the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha laid down a structured disclosure framework that family courts are supposed to follow. What follows is how a Section 24 application actually works in practice, from filing to the factors a court weighs in fixing the amount.
Who can apply, and when
Section 24 is available to either spouse, husband or wife alike, provided the applicant has no independent income sufficient for their own support and for the necessary expenses of the proceeding. This gender-neutral framing matters, because a husband without independent means, for instance one who is unemployed or whose income is genuinely lower than the wife's, can also apply for interim maintenance from a higher-earning wife, though in practice the overwhelming majority of applications are filed by wives.
An application under Section 24 can be filed at any point once the main matrimonial proceeding is instituted and is pending, including very early in the case, and does not require waiting for the final hearing or for evidence to be led in the main matter. This is precisely the point of the provision, since the whole purpose is to provide support during the pendency of the case rather than after it concludes.
The provision also covers the expenses of the proceeding itself, beyond maintenance for living expenses, which matters because litigation in a contested matrimonial matter, with multiple hearings, cross-examination and sometimes expert evidence, can be expensive, and a spouse without funds to pay a lawyer or meet court costs is functionally unable to litigate the main case at all without this support.
The Rajnesh v. Neha disclosure framework
A persistent, practical problem in maintenance litigation has been that both sides routinely conceal or understate their actual income and assets, leaving family courts to decide the amount on incomplete, sometimes deliberately misleading information. The Supreme Court addressed this directly in Rajnesh v. Neha, a November 2020 ruling by a bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, which laid down guidelines under Article 142 meant to apply across overlapping maintenance jurisdictions, including Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS), and the Domestic Violence Act.
The central requirement is a mandatory affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, in a standardised format the Court itself set out, to be filed by both parties in every maintenance proceeding. The aim is to force both spouses onto the record with their actual income, assets, liabilities and standard of living, rather than leaving the court to guess from vague pleadings, and to give the other side a concrete basis to cross-examine and challenge figures that look understated.
The guidelines also address the problem of double recovery, where a spouse might otherwise obtain maintenance orders from multiple forums, say under Section 24 and separately under the Domestic Violence Act, that together overcompensate beyond what is fair. Rather than barring either application, the guidelines direct courts to take into account maintenance already awarded or being paid under a different proceeding when fixing or adjusting the amount in a later one, so that the total support a spouse receives across forums is reasonable rather than duplicated.
What a family court actually weighs in fixing the amount
There is no fixed formula or percentage that applies uniformly, though practitioners sometimes informally refer to a rough one-fourth or one-fifth of the paying spouse's net income as a starting reference point in some decisions; this is not a binding rule and courts vary considerably depending on the facts. Relevant factors generally include the income and earning capacity of both spouses, not merely their current declared income but their actual capacity to earn given qualifications and health, the standard of living the parties were accustomed to during the marriage, the reasonable needs of the applicant spouse and any children in their care, and the paying spouse's own liabilities and dependents.
Courts have repeatedly acknowledged that this exercise involves an element of estimation, since complete, verified financial disclosure is often simply not available, particularly where a spouse is self-employed, works substantially in cash, or holds assets through family members or closely held entities designed to obscure true ownership. Family courts are expected to draw reasonable inferences from the material that is available, including lifestyle, property records, and bank statements, rather than mechanically awarding the minimum a spouse's affidavit happens to disclose.
The date from which interim maintenance is payable is also a live issue in nearly every application. Courts generally fix the amount payable from the date the application was filed, rather than from the date of the eventual order, since the delay in deciding the application is itself frequently caused by the paying spouse's own conduct in contesting it, and awarding maintenance only from the order date would reward that delay.
Why compliance with these guidelines in practice still falls short
Despite the structured framework Rajnesh v. Neha put in place, family court practice on the ground does not uniformly follow it. Litigants and practitioners have repeatedly flagged that many courts continue to decide Section 24 applications on sparse, informally pleaded figures rather than insisting on the standardised affidavit format, partly because enforcing strict compliance slows down an application that is itself meant to provide urgent interim relief.
This creates a practical tension that applicants should be alert to: insisting too rigidly on the other side's full disclosure before any interim amount is fixed can itself delay the relief the applicant urgently needs, while accepting a quick, rough order based on incomplete figures can leave the applicant under-compensated for months before any correction is sought. A pragmatic approach many family court practitioners take is to seek an interim amount quickly based on whatever material is available, while simultaneously pressing for the other side's full affidavit and reserving the right to seek enhancement once better financial information comes on record.
An applicant genuinely struggling to establish the other spouse's true income should consider seeking directions for discovery of specific bank statements, income tax returns and, where relevant, GST filings or company financials, rather than relying only on the opposing spouse's own affidavit, since a spouse inclined to understate income on affidavit is equally inclined to resist voluntary disclosure of the underlying documents that would contradict it.
Enforcement if the paying spouse does not actually pay
An order under Section 24 is a court order like any other and is enforceable in execution if the paying spouse does not comply, including through attachment of property or, in persistent default, through proceedings that can result in detention under the provisions governing execution of money decrees, since courts treat continued non-payment of ordered maintenance seriously, recognising that the entire purpose of interim maintenance is defeated if it exists only on paper.
A spouse facing non-payment should not wait until the main case concludes to seek enforcement, since arrears can accumulate to an amount the paying spouse later claims is impossible to pay in one go, complicating recovery. Filing for execution promptly after each default, or at reasonable intervals, keeps pressure on the paying spouse and avoids a large, contested arrears calculation becoming its own separate dispute years later.
Where the paying spouse's circumstances genuinely change during the pendency of the main case, for instance a job loss or a serious medical condition, either side can apply to the same court for modification of the Section 24 order, since interim maintenance is not meant to be a static, one-time figure frozen at the point it was first fixed, particularly in matters that themselves take years to conclude.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband claim interim maintenance from his wife under Section 24?
Yes. Section 24 is gender-neutral and allows either spouse to apply, provided the applicant lacks sufficient independent income. In practice most applications come from wives, but a husband without independent means can apply against a wife with sufficient income, and courts are required to consider such applications on the same principles.
From what date is interim maintenance under Section 24 usually payable?
Courts generally fix maintenance payable from the date the Section 24 application was filed, rather than from the date of the final order, since the gap between filing and decision is often caused by the paying spouse contesting the application, and awarding maintenance only from the order date would reward that delay.
What is the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities that Rajnesh v. Neha requires?
It is a standardised sworn statement, in a format the Supreme Court itself set out, requiring both spouses to disclose their income, assets, liabilities and standard of living in every maintenance proceeding, including under Section 24. The aim is to give the court and the other side a concrete, checkable basis for the amount claimed or contested, instead of vague pleadings.
Can I get maintenance under both Section 24 and the Domestic Violence Act at the same time?
You can apply under both, since they are separate proceedings, but the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines direct courts to account for maintenance already being paid under one proceeding when fixing or adjusting the amount in the other, to prevent double recovery of overlapping support from different forums.
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 20
- Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (decided 4 November 2020)
- Constitution of India, Article 142