Maintenance law in India is commonly assumed to flow in a single direction — from husband to wife. For the summary remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that assumption is broadly correct: the provision entitles a wife, children and parents, and gives a husband no claim against his wife. But the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is drafted differently. Section 24 permits "either the wife or the husband" without independent income sufficient for support to seek maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, and Section 25 permits permanent alimony to "either spouse". This explainer sets out when a husband's claim is legally available, how courts scrutinise such claims, and the strategic realities in Delhi's family courts.
Two regimes, two philosophies
India's maintenance law is an overlay of a social-welfare remedy and matrimonial statutes. The summary route — Section 125 CrPC, carried into Section 144 BNSS — exists to prevent destitution quickly, and Parliament confined its benefit to wives, children and parents. The matrimonial statutes take a different view of the marital economy: within a marriage governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, financial dependency can point either way, and Sections 24 and 25 are drafted in expressly gender-neutral terms.
Section 144 BNSS (125 CrPC)
Claimants: wife, minor children, adult children unable to maintain themselves, parents. The husband is not a claimant. Forum: Magistrate. Object: speedy prevention of vagrancy.
Sections 24–25 HMA
Claimants: "either the wife or the husband". Forum: the matrimonial court seized of the case. Object: ensuring neither spouse is priced out of the litigation or left without support during and after it.
The Section 24 threshold
Three elements structure a husband's interim claim. First, a pending proceeding under the Act — divorce, restitution, nullity or judicial separation, whether he is petitioner or respondent. Second, absence of independent income sufficient for his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. Third, a comparative exercise: the order is calibrated to the applicant's needs and the respondent spouse's income, on the same principles that govern claims by wives, including full and honest disclosure of assets and income by both sides.
The phrase "no independent income sufficient" does the real work. It does not mean the applicant must be penniless; it means the court measures claimed need against actual resources. But in the hands of a husband, the provision meets an additional, judicially developed filter: earning capacity. Courts consistently hold that an able-bodied man who can work should not use Section 24 to transfer the burden of his idleness to his wife. Claims that succeed tend to involve incapacity, illness, genuine unemployment despite effort, or a wide and demonstrable disparity of means.
What a husband's application should establish
A candid affidavit of income, assets and liabilities — the same disclosure discipline demanded of wives applies, and concealment is routinely fatal.
Concrete proof of inability to earn: medical records for incapacity, evidence of job loss and job search, business failure documents.
Evidence of the wife's means: employment, business income, property and lifestyle indicators.
A realistic quantification of needs and litigation expenses, item by item, rather than a round figure.
Beyond the HMA
The gender-neutral approach is a feature of the Hindu Marriage Act and of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 regime for marriages solemnised under it (which similarly provides for alimony in matrimonial proceedings). By contrast, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 confers maintenance rights on a wife against her husband, not the reverse, and the DV Act protects women alone. A husband's claim therefore stands or falls within the matrimonial proceeding itself — there is no free-standing summary forum for him.
Strategic realities in Delhi family courts
Applications by husbands are uncommon and are examined with care, but they are neither prohibited nor futile in the right facts. Two practical observations follow. For husbands: a Section 24 application built on vague assertions of unemployment invites adverse costs and colours the court's view of the entire matrimonial cause; file only with a documented record. For wives responding: the earning-capacity principle is the natural first line of defence, supported by evidence of the husband's qualifications, work history and lifestyle — and the same affidavit-of-assets framework that protects wives' claims can be deployed to expose an exaggerated claim in reverse.
This article states the statutory position in general terms for information. Whether a particular claim is maintainable, and its likely quantum, depends entirely on the facts, disclosures and forum concerned.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / 144 BNSS?
No. The summary maintenance remedy is available to a wife unable to maintain herself, to children and to parents. A husband is not among the listed claimants, whatever his financial condition. His statutory routes lie under the personal-law statutes governing the marriage.
What must a husband show under Section 24 HMA?
That a proceeding under the Act is pending, and that he has no independent income sufficient for his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, judged against the wife's means. The provision covers both interim monthly maintenance and litigation expenses.
Do courts readily grant maintenance to husbands?
Courts apply real scrutiny. An able-bodied husband with earning capacity is generally expected to earn; claims are typically entertained where the husband is incapacitated, genuinely unable to earn, or demonstrably without income while the wife has substantial means. The provision is a shield against destitution, not an incentive against work.
Is permanent alimony for a husband possible?
Section 25 HMA allows any court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to order permanent alimony for either spouse at the time of or after a decree, having regard to the parties' income, property, conduct and other circumstances. Such orders in favour of husbands exist but are exceptional in practice.