The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a maintenance appeal filed by Yashwani Verma, a retired school teacher, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal challenged the decision of the Family Court at Rohini, which had earlier rejected her application for interim maintenance from her estranged husband, Virender Verma.
Background of the Case
Yashwani and Virender were married in 1978 and have lived separately since 1987. They have two sons who are both adults and gainfully employed. Yashwani retired as a senior teacher in 2014, and currently draws a monthly pension of ₹2,000. She filed a petition seeking ₹60,000 as monthly interim maintenance and ₹1,00,000 as litigation expenses.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Stays Auction of Residential Property in Matrimonial Execution Case
Virender, aged 73, claimed he had retired from Reliance Communication in 2017 and lost all retirement benefits due to the company’s collapse. He maintained he had no source of income and had taken heavy loans from relatives and friends to survive.
"Both parties are around 70 years of age. Although both claimed they have no income, their bank records reflect otherwise. The appellant lives with her two employed sons and has sufficient income to support herself,"
observed the Family Court while dismissing the original application.
Yashwani argued her income was insufficient post-retirement and that she faces rising health and medical expenses. She alleged that Virender had solemnized a second marriage and sought maintenance while her petition challenging that marriage under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act remained pending.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Quashes FIR in 498A/406/34 IPC Case After Mutual Settlement
However, the respondent countered that she earns approximately ₹40,000 through private tuitions, owns a residential property, and receives LIC maturity proceeds. He emphasized his own financial distress, including outstanding debts of ₹23 lakhs and health issues that prevent him from working.
The High Court reiterated that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is meant to ensure basic sustenance for a spouse genuinely unable to support themselves.
"Section 24 is not an automatic entitlement. Courts must assess both parties’ financial capacity and decide judiciously,"
Read also:- Justice Harpreet Singh Brar Allows Bail in GST Fake Firm Case Involving ₹107 Cr Tax Credit
the Bench noted.
It also cited multiple Supreme Court rulings—such as Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, and Rajnesh v. Neha—to highlight that interim maintenance should not become a tool for undue enrichment.
The Court emphasized that:
"The appellant had lived separately for over 30 years without seeking any relief. Her sons are earning, she holds LIC policies, and her claim of surviving on donations lacks evidence."
Read also:- Kollam Bar Association Election Dispute: Kerala High Court Issues Notice on Plea
Additionally, the respondent’s financial incapacity due to age, lack of income, and medical liabilities weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, dismissed the appeal, stating:
"We find no infirmity in the Family Court’s order. The appellant has sufficient income and support to maintain herself."
The Court clarified that its observations do not reflect on the merits of the pending Section 17 case regarding the respondent’s alleged second marriage.
Case Title: Yashwani Verma vs. Virender Verma
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 174/2023