Maintenance in India: Legal Framework, Principles, and Judicial Guidelines

Introduction

Maintenance is a cornerstone of family law in India, designed to ensure financial support for a spouse, child, or dependent parent who cannot sustain themselves. While the underlying objective is humanitarian, maintenance disputes often turn adversarial, with parties concealing income or exaggerating needs. Recognizing these challenges, the Supreme Court of India has framed guidelines to bring fairness, transparency, and consistency to such proceedings. This article explores the legal framework, guiding principles, and judicial considerations that shape maintenance law in India, with particular emphasis on the landmark case of Rajnesh v. Neha(2021).

I. Legal Framework of Maintenance in India

The right to claim maintenance arises under multiple statutes, depending on the relationship and circumstances. For instance, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides a remedy for wives, children, and parents. Provisions are also found in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Similarly, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as well as Christian and Parsi personal laws, contain maintenance clauses.

Although these statutes vary in language and scope, courts in India have developed common guiding principles to ensure equitable outcomes across different cases.

II. Fundamental Principles of Maintenance

When deciding maintenance claims, courts follow certain broad principles. The primary concern is the need of the claimant, balanced against the paying capacity of the respondent. Maintenance is not treated as an automatic right; instead, judges consider the facts of each case, including the conduct of the parties, their social status, and their standard of living during the marriage. Courts strive for fairness, ensuring that one party is not reduced to poverty while also avoiding financial ruin for the other.

III. Considerations in Maintenance Proceedings

In practice, the determination of maintenance requires a holistic inquiry into the circumstances of both parties rather than a rigid formula. Several factors guide this assessment.

Income and Earning Capacity:

Courts examine actual income from salaries, professional fees, or business profits, as well as potential earning capacity. Attempts to evade responsibility through deliberate unemployment or underemployment are discouraged, and judges may impute income based on qualifications and lifestyle.

Assets and Liabilities:

Beyond income, courts also assess wealth, properties, financial interests, and genuine liabilities. Dependents such as aged parents or children are factored in, ensuring a realistic picture of financial capacity.

Reasonable Expenses:

The claimant’s essential needs—such as housing, education, healthcare, and daily living—are carefully weighed. Maintenance is not meant for mere subsistence but to provide a reasonable quality of life.

Marital Lifestyle:

An important benchmark is the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. A spouse or child should not suffer a drastic fall in living standards simply due to separation. Courts consider housing, travel patterns, social activities, and overall spending habits to maintain continuity and dignity.

Dependent Children:

The welfare of children is given paramount importance. Courts ensure adequate provision for their education, healthcare, and extracurricular growth, with both parents contributing proportionately to their means.

IV. Landmark Case: Rajnesh v. Neha

A significant development in relation to this topic came with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021). The case highlighted the delays and inconsistencies caused by non-disclosure of financial details. To address these issues, the Court introduced mandatory affidavits of assets and liabilities, standardized formats for disclosure, and binding guidelines applicable across statutes. These measures aimed to prevent suppression of income, reduce delays, and bring greater transparency to maintenance proceedings.

V. Model Format: Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities

The affidavit prescribed by the Court requires parties to disclose details such as personal and employment information, income from all sources, investments, properties, liabilities, and monthly expenses. This structured disclosure provides judges with a reliable basis for determining maintenance fairly.

VI. Rethinking Maintenance: Beyond Law to Justice

Marriage is often described as a sacred bond — a union of two souls, families, and futures. While that description holds symbolic value, the uncomfortable truth is that marriage in India remains structurally and culturally biased against women, particularly in areas of property rights, financial security, and independence.

Joint property ownership is still far from the norm. Most assets, from houses to investments, are typically registered in the husband’s name, even when wives contribute financially, emotionally, or through domestic labour. When women raise the issue of equal ownership, they are too often dismissed as “selfish” or “materialistic.” This mindset ignores the reality that women deserve an equal financial stake in marriage.

A deeper injustice lies in the way society undervalues domestic work, which is primarily performed by women. Countless homemakers dedicate their lives to raising children, supporting their husbands’ careers, and managing households — often at the cost of their own ambitions. Their unpaid labour sustains families and enables economic stability, yet it is rarely acknowledged in financial or legal terms. When such women face divorce, they frequently find themselves asset-less, savings-less, and job-less. In these circumstances, maintenance becomes not just necessary, but non-negotiable.

Too often, maintenance is portrayed as an unfair burden on men or an undeserved entitlement for women. Such perceptions stem from a deeper misogyny that refuses to recognize unpaid caregiving and household management as legitimate contributions to a marriage. Maintenance is not charity. It is recognition — a legal acknowledgment of shared labour and sacrifice. A woman who has spent years building a home and raising a family should not walk away empty-handed merely because her contributions were not monetized.

True change, however, requires more than judicial guidelines. It calls for a transformation in societal attitudes:

• Property ownership should reflect joint contributions, whether monetary or otherwise.
• Housework must be recognized as valuable, not dismissed as “duty.”
• Maintenance must be seen as protection and recognition, not punishment.
• Financial planning within marriage should be normalized rather than stigmatized.

When women are financially secure, families become more stable. When equality forms the basis of marriage, love and respect flourish. And when maintenance is understood as a right grounded in justice, society moves closer to being not only legally fair but also morally just.

Conclusion

The decision in Rajnesh v. Neha represents a turning point in Indian family law, promoting fairness and transparency in maintenance proceedings. Yet the law alone cannot remedy centuries of structural inequality. Maintenance should not be viewed as compensation or as a handout, but as recognition of shared labour and sacrifice. For India to move forward, it must not only enforce fair laws but also embrace a mindset that values women’s contributions equally — both inside and outside the home.