Maintenance & Retirement Savings
Judgment dated 8.10.2026 of the High Court of Delhi in MAT App (F.C.) 109/2022 of Meenakshi Batra Vs. Vijay Kumar Batra
Section 24 HM Act – Pendente lite Maintenance
the marriage between the appellant and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 16.10.1983 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sector-22, Faridabad. Two children were born from the said wedlock in the years 1984 and 1988 and both have turned major.
the respondent instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Upon service of notice, the appellant entered appearance, filed her written statement and preferred an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking pendent lite maintenance. The appellant denied the allegations of cruelty.
Before the learned Family Court, The respondent, in his income affidavit, disclosed that he was 61 years of age, a graduate and a retired Army officer. He disclosed his pensionary income of Rs. 90,952/- and stated that he was residing in rented accommodation at Faridabad. He further disclosed that his aged mother was suffering from cardiac and other old age ailments and was dependent on him. He also stated that he was suffering from acute hypertension and was running a training establishment under the name and style of “Colonel’s Learning Café”. He disclosed ownership of a second-hand Toyota Corolla Alt is and incurred expenditure towards fuel, insurance and club membership, and had made donations amounting to Rs. 60 lakh to various institutions. He further stated his monthly expenditure to be approximately Rs. 91,000/-
The Family Court noted that the wife has retirement benefits above Rs.50 lakhs. The learned Family Court dismissed the application of the appellant holding that both parties were equally qualified, had retired from Central Government service and had sufficient savings to sustain themselves. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.04.2022, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
It is clear that the determination under Section 24 is not a mathematical exercise. The Court is not required to simply compare the income of the spouses and award the difference to the spouse having the lesser income. At the same time, the Court cannot disregard the relative financial position of the parties, their reasonable needs and the capacity of the spouse from whom maintenance is claimed. It is settled that object of Section 24 of HMA is to avoid vagrancy but it is not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband.
The appellant has also disclosed the retiral benefits received by her during her service, including GPF, gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment, besides PPF and other investments.
In considering these assets, a distinction has to be made between the retirement corpus and the income generated from that corpus. The retirement corpus is accumulated capital. It cannot, merely because it is substantial, be treated as if it were a monthly income. A retired person cannot be expected to consume his or her retirement savings merely for the reason that such savings exist. At the same time, where the retirement savings are invested and generate interest or other returns, such recurring returns are income and have
to be considered. The question before the Court is, therefore, not whether the appellant has a substantial retirement corpus, but whether she has sufficient recurring income and financial resources to meet her reasonable needs.
In the conspectus of the case, we do not affirm the Impugned Order on the reasoning that the appellant’s entire retiral corpus constitutes her income. Nor do we affirm it on the proposition that maintenance is unavailable merely MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022 Page 13 of 14 because the applicant has some independent income or because the incomes of the parties are comparable. 35. Applying correct test under Section 24 to the present case, we find that the appellant has sufficient independent income and resources for her reasonable support during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. The higher pensionary income of the respondent, considered in isolation, does not warrant a different conclusion.