What does a court count when both spouses are retired and living off pensions and savings? In Meenakshi Batra v. Vijay Kumar Batra, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022, decided on 8 October 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court held that a retirement corpus is accumulated capital — relevant to the overall financial picture, but not to be treated as recurring monthly income — and declined interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to a wife whose own pension and interest income already met her reasonable needs.
Two pensioners in a maintenance contest
The parties married in 1983; their children are adults and independent. The husband, a retired Army officer of 61, left the matrimonial home in October 2019 and sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife, an MA, B.Ed. who retired as a Central Government teacher the same month, sought interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA. The Family Court dismissed her application in April 2022, and she appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Her updated affidavit disclosed a monthly pension of about ₹35,329 and interest income of roughly ₹34,000 — about ₹69,000 in all — against claimed expenses of ₹1,16,150. The husband disclosed a pension of about ₹1,09,000, investments of about ₹73 lakh and a PPF balance of ₹16.5 lakh, and pointed out that he supports his mother, aged about 87.
The Bench’s framework
Corpus is capital
“The retirement corpus is accumulated capital”; the “entire retiral corpus cannot be treated as recurring monthly income.” What the corpus yields — interest, dividends, annuity — is income; the principal is not.
No equalisation principle
Section 24 guards against destitution pendente lite. It “is not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband”, so a bare income differential is not a ground for an award.
Expenses face scrutiny
Claimed expenditure is assessed for reasonableness before any part of it is shifted to the other spouse; a wish-list is not a budget.
No income by assumption
Additional income cannot be attributed without material. A café that once existed, or donations made, do not establish present earnings.
Where the Family Court went wrong — and still won
Interestingly, the Division Bench did not endorse the Family Court’s reasoning wholesale. The trial court had leaned on the size of the wife’s retiral benefits — upwards of ₹50 lakh — as though the corpus itself were income, and had compared the two incomes directly. The appellate court corrected both strands: the corpus is capital, and comparison is not the test. The appeal nonetheless failed because, on the corrected approach, the wife’s independent pension and interest income were sufficient for her reasonable support during the proceedings.
Practical pointers for Section 24 applications
- Disclose yield, argue need. For retired parties, the decisive figures are monthly pension and actual investment returns, supported by bank statements — not the headline size of anyone’s savings.
- Substantiate the expense side. Medical costs, rent and household outgoings should be documented; courts in Delhi routinely trim unexplained claims.
- Attribution needs evidence. A party alleging concealed income must point to material — licences, GST registrations, bank credits — and not merely lifestyle impressions.
- The affidavit of assets matters. Proceedings under Section 24 in Delhi turn on the Rajnesh v. Neha format affidavits; accuracy and currency of those disclosures often decide the outcome.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Maintenance outcomes depend on the disclosures and evidence in each case, and the judgment should be read in full before being relied upon.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a retirement corpus counted as income for maintenance?
Not as such. The Division Bench held that the corpus — provident fund, gratuity and similar retiral benefits — is accumulated capital. Only the returns it actually generates, such as interest or pension derived from it, count as recurring income. The corpus remains relevant to the parties' overall financial standing, but a court cannot notionally convert it into a monthly salary.
Does a higher-earning spouse automatically owe maintenance?
No. The Court reiterated that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is meant to prevent destitution during the litigation, not to equalise the incomes of the spouses. The mere fact that the husband's pension of about ₹1.09 lakh exceeded the wife's income of roughly ₹69,000 did not by itself entitle her to maintenance, since her own resources sufficed for reasonable support.
Can a court attribute hidden income to the other spouse?
Only on material. The wife argued that the husband's donations, spending and a café he once ran showed undisclosed earnings. The Bench declined to attribute additional income without evidence on record, observing that past business activity and charitable outgoings do not prove current earnings.
Are claimed expenses accepted at face value?
No. The judgment emphasises that claimed expenditure — here about ₹1.16 lakh per month against an income of ₹69,000 — must be tested for reasonableness before any shortfall can be shifted to the other spouse. Inflated or unexplained outgoings will not generate a maintenance entitlement.