Delhi HC: Wife can claim interim maintenance despite unenforced settlement

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a wife against an April 15 order by a family court that denied her interim maintenance

The Delhi high court has held that a wife can claim interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) even if she does not act upon a settlement with her husband that sought to finalise the maintenance terms. In its December 16 verdict (released later), the court clarified that an unimplemented settlement cannot deprive a spouse of their statutory rights.

The family court had ruled that the wife was bound by the settlement terms finalised on December 1, 2012, despite the settlement never being implemented. (HT Archive)

A bench comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee, in its December 16 order, observed, “The said settlement having not been acted upon, the same could not be treated as binding either on the appellant (wife) or the respondent (husband).”

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a wife against an April 15 order by a family court that denied her interim maintenance. The family court had ruled that the wife was bound by the settlement terms finalised on December 1, 2012, despite the settlement never being implemented. The high court deemed this reasoning flawed, stating that the wife could not be deprived of her statutory right under Section 24 of the HMA.

To be sure, Section 24 of the HMA provides for interim maintenance for a spouse lacking the financial means to sustain themselves or to bear litigation costs. The high court ruled that the statutory right under this provision cannot be negated by an unexecuted agreement.

The bench remarked, “For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the learnt family court has erred in holding that on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 01.12.2012, the appellant (wife) had lost her right to claim maintenance for herself as also for the minor child.”

The wife, represented by advocate Prashant Mendiratta, argued that the family court’s order was “wholly perverse” as it erroneously treated the unenforced settlement as binding. The husband, represented by advocate Seema Seth, countered that the family court was justified in holding the wife bound by the settlement since its terms were formally recorded.

During the hearing, the high court set aside the family court’s decision, calling it “unsustainable,” and remanded the matter back for reconsideration. “The impugned order being unsustainable is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned family court for adjudication of the appellant’s application under section 24 of the HMA afresh,” the court maintained.