Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 speaks of a spouse who has "no independent income sufficient" for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. What happens when both spouses are pensioners — one drawing ₹69,000 a month, the other ₹1,09,000? In Meenakshi Batra v. Vijay Kumar Batra (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022, decided on 8 October 2026), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed the wife's appeal, while correcting the Family Court's reasoning in one important respect: a retirement corpus is not monthly income, and only the returns it actually generates may be counted.
A forty-year marriage reaches the Family Court
The parties married in 1983 and have two adult children. The husband, a retired Army officer, left the matrimonial home in October 2019 and filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA; the wife denied the allegations and, in 2019, filed complaints under Section 498A IPC and Section 12 of the DV Act. In the divorce proceedings she sought pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24. The Family Court dismissed that application in April 2022, holding her income at least equal to her husband\'s, and she appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The financial picture before the Division Bench
| Wife (appellant) | Husband (respondent) | |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring monthly income | About ₹69,000 (pension plus interest) | About ₹1,09,000 (pension) |
| Capital holdings | Retirement benefits exceeding ₹50 lakh | Investments of about ₹73 lakh and PPF of about ₹16.5 lakh |
| Dependants | — | Aged mother |
On these figures, the Bench held, the statutory threshold was simply not met: a spouse with a pension and investment returns of this order cannot be described as lacking independent income sufficient for her support. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Corpus is not income — the correction that matters
Although the outcome went against the wife, the judgment\'s most useful contribution favours future claimants. The Family Court had effectively counted her ₹50 lakh retirement corpus against her, as though the capital itself were a monthly resource. The High Court refused to endorse that approach: retirement savings are accumulated capital built over a working life, and treating them as disposable income would force a retired litigant to consume her security to fund interim litigation. What enters the Section 24 calculus is the yield — interest, dividends, annuity payments — not the principal. Equally, the Bench rejected comparative income as the deciding factor; the inquiry is need-based, not parity-based.
Practical guidance for retired litigants
For a claimant spouse: plead and prove actual monthly inflows, itemise expenses realistically, and expect each head of expenditure to be tested for reasonableness. For a responding spouse: disclose pension, investment returns and dependants fully — the court here gave weight to the husband\'s obligation towards his aged mother. For both: allegations of hidden business income must be supported by material showing current earnings; a defunct venture or charitable donations will not be converted into imputed income.
Section 24 operates only during the pendency of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. Permanent alimony at or after decree is governed separately by Section 25, where the court\'s discretion is wider and capital assets can play a larger role in fixing a one-time settlement. The two inquiries should not be conflated.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the wife's Section 24 application dismissed despite the husband earning more?
Because Section 24 relief depends on the claimant lacking sufficient independent income for her own support, not on comparative incomes. The wife's pension and interest income of about ₹69,000 per month was found sufficient. The court held that a higher pension on the husband's side does not by itself create an entitlement, since the object of the provision is to avoid vagrancy, not to equalise the standard of living at the interim stage.
Did the High Court agree with everything the Family Court said?
No. The Family Court had weighed the wife's retirement benefits exceeding ₹50 lakh as if they were available income and had treated comparative income as decisive. The High Court clarified that a retiral corpus is accumulated capital; only the interest and returns actually generated from it count as income, and claimed expenses must be tested for reasonableness rather than automatically transferred to the other spouse.
Was the husband's alleged business income counted?
No. The wife pointed to a venture called the Colonel's Learning Café, but the husband stated it was no longer earning and no material showed current income from it. Donations relied upon were not treated as proof of undisclosed income. Courts fix maintenance on established income, not conjecture.
Which precedents governed the decision?
The Bench applied the principles summarised in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain and Rajnesh v. Neha — pendente lite maintenance is assessed on the parties' actual means and reasonable needs, with sworn affidavits of assets and liabilities as the factual foundation. The husband's obligation to support his aged mother was also noted as relevant to his capacity.