Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are few judgments which deal with maintenance and alimony under Hindu Marriage Act.

Supreme Court

Chand Dhawan Vs Jawaharlal Dhawan on 11 Jun 1993 [Alimony may be granted in any case where a decree is passed/allowed]
Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors on 5 Nov 2004 [Once MCD done with no future claims, maintenance cannot be claimed later]
Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga Vs Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga on 13 Dec 2004 [Alimony can be granted in a null and void marriage]
Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 [Full Bench decides the Reference: Alimony can be granted in a null and void marriage; upholds Chand Dhawan Vs Jawaharlal Dhawan on 11 Jun 1993 and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga Vs Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga on 13 Dec 2004 and overrules other judgments]
Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain on 10 Dec 2024 [Instances of the appellant’s deliberate attempts to mislead the judicial process. He withheld critical financial documents and selectively disclosed information to conceal the full extent of his wealth; False representations by the appellant regarding his property and income; Demonstrated a pattern of deliberate suppression of material facts and assets]
Rinku Baheti Vs Sandesh Sharda on 19 Dec 2024 [Settlement and MCD at 12 Crores]
Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and Anr on 10 Jan 2025 [Being successful in RCR case doesn’t automatically disqualify the wife from maintenance under 125 CrPC/144 BNSS]

Allahabad High Court

Archana Sharma Vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma on 22 September, 2014 [Permanent Alimony is denied]
Arti Tiwari Vs Sanjay Kumar Tiwari on 04 Sep 2024 [Deserting wife is not entitled for Permanent Alimony]
Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Guntamukkala Naga Venkata Kanaka Durga Nagamani Vs Guntamukkala Eswar Sudhakar on 19 October, 2012 [Permanent Alimony is denied]

Bombay High Court

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 [Permanent Alimony is denied]
Vijayashree Ganesh Ingle Vs Dr Nishant Arvind Kale on 08 Jan 2021 [Permanent Alimony application can be either oral or written]
Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024 [The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance under sec 24 HMA]

Delhi High Court

Bharat Hegde vs Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ratna Sharma on 3 July, 2009
Sujit Kumar Vs Vandana on 08 Aug 2016 [Based on Bharat Hegde above from 2007]
Rupali Gupta Vs Rajat Gupta on 5 September, 2016
Kirti Nagpal Vs Rohit Girdhar on 12 February, 2019 [Highly qualified Working wife not entitled to HMA 24]
Mahima Chaturvedi Vs Deepak Malhotra on 26 Jul 2021 [Relies on K.N Vs R.G from Delhi HC]
Poonam Sethi Vs Sanjay Sethi on 07 Jan 2022 []
Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023 [Highly qualified Working wife not entitled to HMA 24; Quotes Rupali and Mamta]
Anju and Anr Vs Rinku Dahiya on 11 Oct 2023 [HMA 24 is not to equalize the parties; If NRIs involved, PPPI (Purchase Power Parity Index) has to be used; Interim Maintenance reduced]
Nikhat Parveen Vs Rafiqui and Ors on 17 Oct 2023 [Biological father liable to pay maintenance]
Rita Raj Vs Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri on 17 Oct 2025 [Permanent Alimony is denied for independent wife]
Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025 [Rent maintenance under DV Act cannot continue after wife acquires property]

Karnataka High Court

XXX Vs YYY on 27 July, 2017 (Maintenance granted from Date of Application instead from Date of Order) (Had to redact the names and addresses of the parties on the Orders of Karnataka High Court)
K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024 [Bank statements and IT return to be produced by wife, as per Rajnesh Vs Neha]
H P Komala Vs N Ravikumar on 29 Jul 2024 (Stay of divorce proceedings until arrears of interim maintenance is paid)

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 [Highly qualified wife not entitled to HMA 24]

Madras High Court

Amarnath Vs J.Remabarathi on 22 Aug 2025 [Wife Holding Immovable Properties & Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance To Live Comfortably]

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022 [Wife was living in adultery not entitled to maintenance u/s 25 HMA]

Telangana High Court

Sreenivas Motupalli Vs Anjana Taggarse Motupalli on 15 Oct 2024 [Wife Holding Immovable Properties & Substantial Income Does Not Need Interim Maintenance]

Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.

Rupali Gupta Vs Rajat Gupta on 5 September, 2016

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Interim maintenance itself is denied to qualified knife. Awesome !!!

Rupali Gupta Vs Rajat Gupta on 5 September, 2016

Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This landmark judgment from Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Kurian Joseph at Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the words “adult male” appearing in Section 2(q) of the Act as discriminatory.

From Last Para,

46. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted. We may only add that the impugned judgment has ultimately held, in paragraph 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ Petition No.300/2013 for the same. When this was pointed out, Ms. Meenakshi Arora very fairly stated that she would not be pursuing those complaints, and would be content to have a declaration from this Court as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act. We, therefore, record the statement of the learned counsel, in which case it becomes clear that nothing survives in the aforesaid complaints of October, 2010. With this additional observation, this appeal stands disposed of.

Hiral P Harsora and ors Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors on October 6, 2016

Citation: [2016 SCC OnLine SC 1118] or [(2016) 10 SCC 165]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114237665/

More than 5 years back, Supreme Court has actually held that Women can also be made respondents in a DV case here.

The index page is here.

Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on the landmark judgment of Apex Court in HIRAL P.HARSORA v. KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA“, Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered this wonderful quash judgment, confirming that as long as no domestic relationship exists between parties, Domestic Violence case can not be maintainable.

Yadlapalli Mary Mani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 21 December, 2016

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189636982/

The index page is here.

Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs Manjari on 17 May, 2012

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Delhi High Court clarifies that

a Magistrate, when Petitioned under Section 12 (1) is not obliged to call for and consider the DIR before issuing notice to the respondent. However, if the DIR has already been submitted, that should be considered, in view of the proviso to Section 12 (1).

Shambhu Prasad Singh vs Manjari on 17 May, 2012

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and ors on 05 May 2014

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple principle is wonderfully upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in this judgment.

‘No domestic violence’ means ‘No reliefs under Domestic Violence Act’. Period.

Not even for Children

Especially, it was held that

9. It is thus, clear that the monetary relief is available for the children of the aggrieved person if the monetary relief is required to meet the expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. The monetary relief is also permissible in case losses are suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence. The monetary relief is available to children of the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the Act. However, the aggrieved person is under obligation to establish that she had to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered due to domestic violence on the part of the respondent. In the present case, since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 also.

From Para 10,

10. In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate had committed an error in granting monetary relief to respondent Nos.2 and 3 despite the fact that domestic violence could not be established. Though it is possible to say that the maintenance was permissible for respondent Nos.2 and 3 (minor children) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the monetary reliefs could not have been given to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The view taken by the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court, in my opinion, is not correct.

Moreover, Judge ordered refund of the money deposited by the husband with the Court.

iii. The amount of Rs.Twenty Five Thousand, deposited by the petitioner in this Court shall be refunded to him immediately.

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014

Citation: 2014 All MR(Cri) 2398

Other Sources:

The Index of PWDV Act cases here.

Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another wonderful Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandari ji, quashing the false IPC 498A case due to no specific allegations on the accused.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately, a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”

Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Citation: [(2010) 7 SCC 667], [AIR 2010 SC 3363], [2010 SCC CR 3 473], [2010 SCALE 8 131], [2010 ALLMR CRI 0 2947], [2010 RCR CRI 4 45], [2010 CRLJ 0 4303], [2010 SCJ 6 609], [2010 AD SC 9 28], [2010 AIR SC 4975], [2011 MLJ CRI 2 89], [2010 JT 8 410], [2010 SLT 6 7], [2010 DMC 2 387], [2010 SUPREME 6 312], [2010 OCR 47 367], [2010 AIOL 501], [2010 ANJ SC 2 202], [2010 CRIMES SC 4 19], [2010 SCC 7 66], [2010 SCC CRI 3 473], [2011 AIC 99 149], [2010 GUJ LH 3 258], [2010 CRI LJ 4303]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee0e4b0149711414fdd

Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Very good judgment wherein, false DVC is dismissed on all family members, except husband, for the ground of general and sweeping allegation. More interestingly, same allegations were used to file a false IPC 498A case also earlier.

In the instant case, by making the very same general and sweeping allegations, the petitioner get the respondents 2 to 6 involved in the domestic violence case. From the nature of the allegations levelled against the respondents 2 to 6, the intention of the complainant seems to be that she wanted to involve all the relatives of her husband in the domestic violence case. By examining the facts of the present case, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, I am thoroughly convinced that the respondents 2 to 6 were involved in the DVC on account of the vindictive attitude of the petitioner/wife, continuing them in the DVC will not yield any useful purpose except causing harassment and hardship to them. Both the Courts below, therefore, are perfectly justified in taking the view that the cognizance of the case shall not been taken against the respondents 2 to 6/A2 to A6.

Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012

Citation: [2013 ALD CRI 1 634], [2013 CRILJ 4653]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8bae4b0149711143245

The index page is here.

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Supreme Court bench has delivered this landmark judgment calling out the cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence) in Indian Society and exclaimed that,

“In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.“

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198000498/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414dd7

Citations: [2010 SCC CRI 1 324], [2010 SCC 2 114], [2009 SCALE 14 473], [2010 AIC 85 13], [2010 AIR SC SUPP 116], [2010 AIR SC 0 50], [2010 SCJ 1 863], [2009 JT 15 201], [2009 SLT 9 167], [2009 AIOL 1294], [2009 SUPREME 8 485], [2010 ALL LJ 1 536], [2010 MADLJ 2 483], [2010 AIR SCW 50]

Index of perjury case laws here.

Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015

Posted on May 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A very good point available in this judgment from the JMFC. Ongole, for those who are facing Domestic Violence case as well as IPC 498A wherein the allegations are same in both.

When the husband of a knife dies, maintenance of the daughter-in-law falls are the parents-in-law as long as she is alive. There is no requirement of law that a grandfather is under an obligation to maintain his grand child when the mother of said child is alive.

Boddu Anjali Vs Boddu Annapoornamma on 17 June, 2015

Index of PWDV Act cases here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: May 2018

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act

Rupali Gupta Vs Rajat Gupta on 5 September, 2016

Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016

Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016

Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs Manjari on 17 May, 2012

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and ors on 05 May 2014

Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015