INTRODUCTION  

Maintenance or alimony refers to the legal obligation to provide financial support by one person to another, typically after separation, divorce, or within specific familial relations. It is a measure of social justice envisaged under the Preamble and Constitution of India, particularly Article 39 of the directive principle of state policy and 15(2) under fundamental rights. A person is obligated to provide financial support to ensure that the other party do not go into destitution or vagrancy, ensuring financial support and sustenance to the economically vulnerable individual or the member of the family and upholding their dignity and welfare; allowing them to maintain a decent standard of living which is consistent with that enjoyed during marriage, it functions as vital social mechanism, enforcing moral and legal obligation, mitigating the severe economic impact of Marvel breakdown and providing a swift, accessible remedy to those in need. 

KEY PROVISIONS AND LEGISLATIONS 

Maintenance is the legal and moral obligation of the husband to provide financial support to his wife. They can claim maintenance under various secular laws or personal laws, such as: 

1. Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 

Maintenance can be claimed by a wife who is unable to maintain herself, and is provided for under section 144(1)(a). A condition precedent to such a claim is the sufficiency of means with the husband. 

2. Hindu Marriage Act 1955 

Maintenance claim under this Act is specifically for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists. This legislation allows either spouse to claim interim maintenance (section 24) or permanent maintenance (section 25). 

3. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 

It is another personal legislation for Hindus. Section 18 explicitly provides for a maintenance claim to a wife by her husband throughout her lifetime. This section also lists specific grounds on which a Hindu wife can live separately from her husband and is still entitled to maintenance. However, a divorced wife cannot claim maintenance under this Act. 

4. Muslim women (Protection of rights on divorce) Act 1986 

It is a personal law related to maintenance entitlement for Muslim women. This section provides for “reasonable and fair provision and maintenance” for her husband to be made and paid within the iddat period. However, in 2001, in the case of Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified that the reasonable and fair provision and maintenance must cover the divorced wife’s future needs beyond the iddat period. 

5. protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 

It is a secular and civil law. It provides for monetary relief, including maintenance, even if the parties are still living together in a shared household or are in a live-in relationship and have suffered economic abuse. 

6. Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 

This legislation contains provisions for permanent alimony and maintenance for Christian women. 

7. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936. 

This legislation contained provisions for alimony and maintenance for Parsis.  

8. Special Marriage Act 1954. 

This is a secular legislation for marriage and divorce. It also includes provisions for permanent alimony and maintenance for spouses. 

INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “WIFE” UNDER HINDU LAW 

1. Various interpretations of the term ‘wife’ have been made by the Supreme Court in various cases, to expand the scope, under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 

1. In the case of Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy v. Padmamma (1999), the term “Hindu wife” connotes a legally wedded wife whose marriage is not void ab initio. Only that wife is entitled to maintenance whose marriage is valid and not void. Any wife whose marriage has been solemnized but is void is not entitled to claim maintenance under this provision. 

2. In Vihalal Mangaldas Patel v. Maiben Vihalal Patel (1995), the wife shall include a divorced wife. 

3. In Vihalal Mangaldas Patel v. Maiben Vihalal Patel (2003) define chaste life in the context of marital life is defined as a life which is sexually virtuous. The sexual relations of a wife with one of the opposite sex other than the husband fall within the vice of unchaste life. However, in modern times, the conduct of women talking to a stranger or mixing with friends or relatives of the husband cannot be concluded to be that of living an unchaste life, and the husband cannot deny maintenance to the wife on such grounds. 

4. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, women in long-term live-in relationships. 

EVOLUTION IN INDIA THROUGH CASE LAWS 

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 

This is the most foundational. Place in the history of maintenance law in India, wherein the divorced Muslim woman filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code after her husband’s liability under Muslim personal law had ended. The Supreme Court, with this landmark judgment, held that Section 125 of the CrPC was secular in nature and applied to all citizens, including Muslim women. It ruled that a Muslim husband’s obligation to maintain his divorced wife would not and with the without. If she was. Are you able to maintain yourself? 

Danial Latifi and Anr. V. Union of India. (2001) 

In this case, the petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and gave it a liberal interpretation. It held that the reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be awarded by the husband must be given to the Muslim divorced wife, even after the iddat period. Through this judgment, the court ensured that the Muslim women shall have the right to sustain themselves throughout their lifetime unless they are remarried or have become self-sufficient. 

Anubha v. Vikas Aggarwal (2003) 

The concept of matrimonial cruelty is no longer confined to physical violence; it is not necessary to prove the ground of cruelty by showing the endangering of life, limb, or health through physical or personal violence, as viewed, which has been holding the field for several decades. Cruelty occurs when there is bodily harm, and injury is no more valid in modern times than cruelty has widened its net to maintain ‘mental cruelty’. Any conduct which causes such mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible for the aggrieved party to live with the guilty party comes within the ambit of mental cruelty. 

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. (2011) 

In this judgment, the Supreme Court adopted A broader and more expansive definition of the term ‘wife’ under section 125 CrPC. The apex court is of the view that if a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife for a considerable period, a presumption of marriage arises. The court awards the maintenance claim in the living relationship based on a legal fiction. The court allowed that strict marriage proof should not be a precondition for maintenance, especially in light of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The code bases this stance on the reason that living in relationships may be immoral in society, but they are legal in the eyes of the law.  

Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 

In this case, the apex court laid down the guidelines to determine when a living relationship would be considered in the nature of marriage under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, thereby allowing the female partner to claim relief, including maintenance. 

Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2020)  

This is a landmark judgment that revolutionized the procedural aspects of maintenance across various laws. The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to ensure uniformity, efficiency, and fairness in maintenance proceedings. This judgment has also streamlined the process, reduced delays, and introduced greater accountability in maintenance cases. Some key directives include: 

1. Both parties must file detailed affidavits disclosing their income, assets, liabilities, and expenses to bring transparency in the process and prevent concealment of financial status. 
2. Reaffirmed and consolidated various factors are considered for determining the maintenance amount, ensuring more scientific and equitable distribution. 
3. The court mandated that the maintenance shall be awarded from the date of filing of the application to prevent delays and undue hardship, as against the previously mandated date of the order. 
4. To resolve the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, the court has given guidelines on how to streamline the process and avoid multiplicity of applications. 

Apurva v. Dolly and Ors (2024) 

This judgment is crucial as it addresses the priority of maintenance claims over other financial obligations. The Supreme Court held that the right to maintenance of a wife and children takes precedence over claims of creditors, even those under business laws like the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court made this claim on the grounds that the right to maintenance is integral to the right to sustenance and dignity flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This judgment prevents the husband from evading their liability of providing maintenance by claiming losses or debts.  

Rani Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025) 

This landmark case focused on enhancing the quantum of permanent alimony to ensure its long-term adequacy. The Supreme Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded to a divorced wife, reiterating that she is entitled to a level of maintenance that is similar to the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. The court allowed for a periodic increase, for example 5% increase every two years in the quantum of alimony. This measure was taken to account the inflation and ensure adequacy. This judgment set a precedent for a more dynamic and realistic approach to calculating maintenance, acknowledging the impact of inflation and the need for long-term financial stability for the wife. 

CONCLUSION 

The evolution of revives right to maintenance in India has moved from basic survival provision to a comprehensive framework which is rooted in social justice and dignity. The right has expanded significantly, ensuring financial security for women in diverse marital and domestic situations. These landmark judgments have not only broadened the definition of life to include those in living relationships but also have streamlined the procedural aspect of maintenance, making the process more transparent and efficient. Essentially, the recent rulings have prioritized maintenance as a fundamental right, affirming its precedence over other financial obligations and increasing its quantum to ensure a dignified life and a decent standard of living. These legal evolutions underscore India’s commitment to gender equality and economic justice, ensuring that women who are considered economically vulnerable after marital separation are empowered to live with dignity.

AUTHOR: KAVYA GUPTA