Maintenance claims in Delhi travel by several statutory routes — Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC), Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Less often invoked, but in some situations the strongest of all, is Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: a substantive personal-law right of a Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime, with an express right to claim maintenance while residing separately on specified grounds. It requires no divorce petition, no criminal-court proceeding, and no finding of "inability to maintain herself" in the Section 144 BNSS sense.
The nature of the right
Section 18(1) declares that a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. The right is not created by a court order; it exists by force of the statute and the relationship. Litigation under Section 18 therefore differs in kind from a Section 144 BNSS petition: the court is enforcing a civil entitlement, not merely preventing vagrancy. "Maintenance" itself is defined expansively in Section 3(b) — provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment, and, in the case of an unmarried daughter, the reasonable expenses of her marriage.
Separate residence: the Section 18(2) grounds
| Ground | What must be shown |
|---|---|
| Desertion | Abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent or against the wife's wish, or wilful neglect |
| Cruelty | Conduct creating a reasonable apprehension that living with the husband is harmful or injurious |
| Another wife living | The husband has any other wife living |
| Concubinage | The husband keeps a concubine in the same house or habitually resides with one elsewhere |
| Conversion | The husband has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion |
| Residual clause | Any other cause justifying living separately |
The residual clause matters in practice: it accommodates situations — sustained humiliation, interference by in-laws the husband will not check, a matrimonial home rendered unliveable — that fit no named ground but plainly justify separation. The wife pleading any ground carries the burden of proof, but the standard is the civil preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Quantum: the Section 23 matrix
Section 23(1) leaves quantum to the court's discretion; Section 23(2) directs regard to the position and status of the parties, the reasonable wants of the claimant, whether she is justified in living separately, the value of her property and any income from it or from her own earnings, and the number of persons entitled to maintenance under the Act. In Delhi's Family Courts the exercise is anchored by sworn affidavits of income, assets and expenditure from both sides — the same disclosure discipline that governs other maintenance proceedings — and by documentary probing of lifestyle: bank statements, credit-card records, travel, school fees, rent actually paid.
Because the Section 18 claim is a civil suit, interim relief is available pendente lite, and the decree is executable like any money decree — including by attachment. Arrears, once decreed, are recoverable within the limitation applicable to decrees, which practically outlasts the enforcement window many litigants assume from summary proceedings.
Choosing the forum wisely
Section 18 is not always the first choice: it is slower than a Section 144 BNSS petition and involves fuller pleadings and trial. It earns its place in three situations. First, where the wife does not want matrimonial litigation — she seeks neither divorce nor restitution, only enforcement of her right to be maintained, with the marriage subsisting. Second, where quantum justifies a fuller forum: substantial marital standard of living, business income needing investigation, or claims to residence-related provision beyond what summary courts award. Third, where a separate-residence finding has independent value — a Section 18(2) adjudication that separation is justified undercuts later allegations of desertion against the wife. A well-planned strategy often layers the remedies: swift interim protection under Section 144 BNSS or the DV Act, with the Section 18 suit carrying the permanent claim.
The chamber of Advocate Manish Jha conducts maintenance, domestic violence and matrimonial litigation before the Family Courts, Mahila Courts and the High Court of Delhi. This article is for general information; it is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is Section 18 HAMA different from Section 144 BNSS?
Section 144 BNSS is a summary, secular remedy aimed at preventing destitution — quick, but conceptually tied to the claimant's inability to maintain herself. Section 18 HAMA is a substantive civil right under Hindu personal law: the wife's entitlement flows from the marital relationship itself, the quantum is assessed on the considerations in Section 23, and the claim is tried as a civil suit — in Delhi, before the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
When can a wife claim maintenance while living separately?
Section 18(2) lists the grounds: desertion by the husband; cruelty causing a reasonable apprehension that living with him is harmful or injurious; the husband having another wife living; keeping a concubine or habitually residing with one; conversion to another religion; and any other cause justifying separate living. Proof of any one ground preserves the right in full while the wife resides apart.
Can the right be lost?
Under Section 18(3), a Hindu wife is not entitled to separate residence and maintenance if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion. Interim conduct, employment or income do not defeat the right; they bear on quantum under Section 23(2) — the parties' position and status, the claimant's reasonable wants, her own income and property, and the number of persons the husband must maintain.
Can Section 18 be combined with other maintenance claims?
Yes, subject to the settled rule against double recovery: amounts received under one statute are adjusted against awards under another. A wife may, for example, hold an interim order under Section 144 BNSS and pursue a fuller Section 18 suit for permanent quantum. Courts increasingly require disclosure of all parallel proceedings and set off overlapping amounts.