Maintenance law in India is usually discussed as a wife's remedy, and under most statutes it is: Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) permits claims by a wife, children and parents, never by a husband. But the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is drafted differently. Sections 24 and 25 speak of "either the wife or the husband", making both interim maintenance and permanent alimony available, in principle, to a husband who has no independent income sufficient for his support. This explainer maps where a husband can claim, where he cannot, and the searching scrutiny such claims receive.
The statutory map: who may claim what
| Provision | Who can claim | What is available |
|---|---|---|
| Section 24, HMA | Either spouse | Litigation expenses and monthly maintenance pendente lite, where the claimant has no independent income sufficient for support. |
| Section 25, HMA | Either spouse | Permanent alimony and maintenance, at the time of any decree or subsequently, variable on change of circumstances. |
| Section 144, BNSS (old S.125 CrPC) | Wife, children, parents | Monthly allowance — a husband cannot claim under this provision. |
| Section 18, HAMA | Wife only | Maintenance from the husband without any matrimonial proceeding. |
| Section 20, DV Act | Aggrieved woman | Monetary relief — again unavailable to a husband. |
The asymmetry is deliberate. Parliament built a wide social-justice net for wives, children and parents, and a narrower, reciprocal equity inside the Hindu Marriage Act alone. A husband\'s claim therefore lives and dies within a pending or concluded HMA proceeding.
The real test: incapacity, not idleness
The text of Section 24 conditions relief on the claimant having "no independent income sufficient for his or her support". For husbands, courts have grafted onto this a consistent gloss: the provision protects those who cannot earn, not those who will not.
Claims that fail
An able-bodied, educated husband citing unemployment alone; income concealed or understated; a claim mounted as leverage against the wife\'s own maintenance application; reliance on the wife\'s salary as a substitute for effort.
Claims with substance
Serious illness or disability destroying earning capacity, proved medically; a husband who demonstrably ran the household while the wife built her career; age and labour-market reality that make re-employment implausible; expenses of the litigation where the wife\'s means vastly exceed his.
How quantum is approached
Where a husband crosses the threshold, quantum follows the ordinary discipline of maintenance law as consolidated in Rajnesh v. Neha: affidavits of disclosure from both sides, and an assessment balancing the status of the parties, reasonable needs, actual incomes and liabilities, and the standard of living during the marriage. Two features deserve emphasis in husband-claims. First, litigation expenses under Section 24 are often the more realistic component — courts readily equalise the ability to contest proceedings even where they hesitate over monthly support. Second, any award remains variable: Section 25(2) permits modification on a change of circumstances, so a husband who regains earning capacity can expect the award to shrink or end.
Strategic notes for both sides
- For husbands considering a claim: plead incapacity with particulars — medical records, employment history, the family arrangement that curtailed your earning — and file a complete assets affidavit before being asked. A thin claim invites costs and colours the entire matrimonial case.
- For wives resisting a claim: the claimant\'s qualifications, past income, and capacity to earn are the pressure points; interrogatories and bank summons under the disclosure regime expose unexplained lifestyles.
- For both: Section 24 applications are meant to be decided swiftly, on affidavits, without becoming a trial within the trial — prolixity hurts the party that benefits from delay.
- Remember the one-way statutes: no tactical creativity makes a husband eligible under Section 144 BNSS, HAMA or the DV Act; a claim filed there is stillborn.
Gender-neutral maintenance inside the HMA is a narrow equity, honestly available but sternly policed. It exists for the spouse genuinely unable to sustain the litigation or himself — and for no one else.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the evidence of income, capacity and conduct in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband legally claim maintenance from his wife?
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, yes. Section 24 allows either spouse, during a matrimonial proceeding, to seek expenses of the proceeding and monthly support where that spouse has no independent income sufficient for maintenance; Section 25 similarly allows permanent alimony to either spouse at or after the decree. By contrast, Section 144 BNSS and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are one-way provisions available to the wife alone.
Is a claim available only if there is a pending matrimonial case?
Section 24 operates pendente lite — it requires a pending proceeding under the HMA, such as a divorce, nullity or restitution petition, filed by either side. Section 25 operates at the time of passing any decree or afterwards. A husband with no HMA proceeding on foot has no free-standing maintenance remedy against his wife.
Will an able-bodied husband succeed?
Rarely. Courts distinguish between inability to earn and unwillingness to earn: a healthy, qualified husband who chooses not to work cannot convert his idleness into his wife's liability. Claims generally succeed only where the husband shows genuine incapacity — serious illness or disability, loss of earning capacity, or circumstances such as having sacrificed his career for the family — supported by credible proof.
What disclosure must both sides make?
The affidavit-of-assets regime laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) applies to maintenance proceedings generally: both parties file sworn disclosures of income, assets and liabilities, and the court fixes quantum by weighing status, reasonable needs, earning capacities and obligations. A husband-claimant faces the same disclosure duties, and exaggeration cuts against him as sharply as it does against any claimant.