Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in BG v. VG (FA-1135-2024), 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 303, delivered a significant ruling on the interplay between a spouse’s own pleadings and the entitlement to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla upheld the order of the Family Court, Morena, rejecting the wife’s application for maintenance pendente lite. The Court observed that when a wife herself pleads that her husband is of unsound mind, she cannot ordinarily seek maintenance from him unless she establishes that, despite the alleged mental illness, he remains capable of earning an income.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is intended to ensure that a spouse who lacks sufficient independent income is not placed at a disadvantage during matrimonial litigation. The provision enables the court to grant maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses after considering the financial position of both parties. However, the entitlement is not automatic. Courts are required to assess the financial capacity of the person from whom maintenance is claimed, the income and earning potential of the applicant, and the overall circumstances of the case.
The matrimonial dispute between the parties had a long and complicated history. The marriage was solemnized in 2008. Within a year, disputes surfaced, leading to multiple rounds of litigation. The husband initially instituted divorce proceedings in 2009 but later withdrew the petition. Subsequently, both parties jointly filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. However, the petition failed because the agreed terms between the parties were not complied with. The challenge before the High Court also did not produce any favourable outcome.
The litigation continued when the husband filed another divorce petition in 2014, which was also withdrawn. In 2016, he instituted a third divorce petition. During the pendency of this petition, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance.
The wife alleged that she had been subjected to dowry-related harassment, was expelled from the matrimonial home, and had no independent means of maintaining herself. According to her, the husband owned and operated a medical store and earned approximately ₹50,000 per month. On that basis, she sought interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month.
The husband strongly disputed these assertions. He claimed that after the death of his first wife, he had married the appellant, but she never intended to maintain a matrimonial relationship. He alleged that she frequently threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases relating to dowry harassment. According to him, he had two daughters from his first marriage whose welfare depended entirely upon him. He denied running any medical shop and contended that the wife herself was a practising advocate earning nearly ₹30,000 every month. Accepting these submissions, the Family Court dismissed the wife’s application for interim maintenance, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
The appeal thus raised important questions regarding the effect of inconsistent pleadings, the evidentiary burden in claims for interim maintenance, and whether a spouse who alleges that the other spouse suffers from unsoundness of mind can simultaneously seek maintenance without demonstrating that such mental condition does not affect earning capacity.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant-wife challenged the Family Court’s order by contending that it had failed to appreciate the true financial circumstances of the parties. She argued that there was no reliable documentary evidence establishing that she had a stable or sufficient source of income. Although allegations had been made that she was a practising advocate, she clarified that she was not actively engaged in legal practice capable of generating a regular income. According to her submissions, she occasionally worked as a Commissioner appointed for recording evidence, but even those assignments had ceased, leaving her without adequate financial support.
She further maintained that she had been subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment during the subsistence of the marriage and was ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Since she had no dependable source of livelihood, she asserted that the husband was legally obligated to maintain her during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. She relied upon the husband’s alleged financial capacity and reiterated that he was earning approximately ₹50,000 every month through a medical store. Consequently, she sought an award of ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance together with litigation expenses.
The wife also brought additional circumstances to the notice of the High Court by producing medical records showing that she was undergoing treatment for cancer. On that basis, she requested an additional amount of ₹15 lakh towards her medical expenses, arguing that the serious nature of her illness substantially increased her financial requirements. She submitted that the Family Court had failed to consider the humanitarian dimension of her medical condition while rejecting her application.
The respondent-husband opposed the appeal in its entirety. He argued that the marriage had remained troubled from its very inception because the appellant was unwilling to discharge her matrimonial obligations. According to him, she repeatedly threatened to implicate him and his family members in false criminal proceedings under dowry laws. He contended that she voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and even took away valuables before leaving.
The husband further asserted that he had the responsibility of maintaining his two daughters from his first marriage. Contrary to the wife’s allegations, he denied owning or operating any medical shop. He disputed the assertion that he earned ₹50,000 every month and maintained that the wife had deliberately exaggerated his financial position.
A significant aspect of the husband’s defence was his contention that the wife herself was financially independent. He argued that she possessed legal qualifications, practised as an advocate, and earned approximately ₹30,000 every month. Therefore, according to him, she did not satisfy the statutory requirement of lacking sufficient independent income under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The husband also relied upon the wife’s own amended pleadings wherein she had alleged that he was of unsound mind. According to him, such a plea fundamentally undermined her claim for maintenance because if she asserted that he suffered from mental incapacity, she was simultaneously questioning his ability to earn an income. Without proving that his alleged mental illness did not affect his earning capacity, she could not seek maintenance from him.
He further opposed the claim for ₹15 lakh towards medical expenses by pointing out that the wife was already covered under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme and possessed a valid Ayushman Card entitling her to medical benefits. Therefore, according to him, the additional financial claim was unjustified.
On these grounds, the respondent submitted that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the facts and law and that the appeal deserved dismissal.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court carefully examined the long history of litigation between the parties before considering the merits of the wife’s claim for interim maintenance. The Court observed that the matrimonial relationship had been marked by continuous disputes almost immediately after the marriage, resulting in multiple divorce proceedings and several unsuccessful legal actions initiated by both sides.
The Bench noted that one of the significant admissions made by the wife during the proceedings was that the marriage had never been consummated. This circumstance, coupled with the repeated rounds of litigation, reflected the complete breakdown of the matrimonial relationship.
The Court also considered the outcome of earlier proceedings initiated by the wife. It observed that she had not succeeded in obtaining relief in previous proceedings relating to maintenance or allegations of domestic violence. Although the failure in earlier proceedings was not by itself decisive, it formed part of the broader factual matrix that the Court considered while evaluating the credibility and sustainability of her present claim.
A crucial aspect that influenced the Court’s decision was the amendment introduced by the wife in her pleadings. By way of amendment, she specifically alleged that the husband was of unsound mind. The Bench held that this pleading had serious legal consequences. The Court explained that maintenance under Section 24 proceeds on the assumption that the respondent spouse possesses sufficient earning capacity to support the applicant. Where a spouse alleges that the other suffers from mental illness amounting to unsoundness of mind, the allegation naturally raises questions regarding that person’s functional ability to earn.
The High Court observed that there is no absolute legal bar preventing a wife from claiming maintenance from a husband suffering from mental illness. However, the burden lies upon the claimant to establish that the alleged mental illness does not result in functional incapacity affecting the husband’s earning ability. Unless such evidence is produced, a claim for maintenance cannot ordinarily succeed because the very foundation of the claim—the respondent’s capacity to provide financial support—remains unproved.
The Court emphasised that pleadings in judicial proceedings are not mere formalities. They define the scope of the dispute and bind the parties who make them. A litigant cannot simultaneously rely upon inconsistent factual assertions without explaining how they can coexist. In the present case, while the wife claimed that the husband was mentally unsound, she also sought maintenance from him without demonstrating that he nevertheless retained sufficient earning capacity. The Court held that these pleadings weakened rather than strengthened her claim.
The Bench specifically observed that the appellant’s own pleadings had placed her maintenance claim in jeopardy. Once the allegation of unsoundness of mind was introduced, it became necessary for her to establish through appropriate material that the alleged mental condition did not impair the husband’s ability to generate income. Since no such evidence was placed before the Court, the claim could not be accepted.
The Court also considered the wife’s request for an additional amount of ₹15 lakh towards cancer treatment. While expressing sympathy for her medical condition, the Bench noted that the material on record showed that she possessed an Ayushman Card, making her eligible for medical treatment under the government-sponsored healthcare scheme. In these circumstances, the Court found no legal justification to direct the husband to pay the claimed amount towards medical expenses in the pending proceedings under Section 24.
The High Court reiterated that Section 24 is a beneficial provision intended to ensure fairness during matrimonial litigation by preventing economic disadvantage to either spouse. At the same time, the provision requires the court to carefully assess the financial position of both parties. Interim maintenance cannot be granted solely on the basis of allegations. The applicant must establish lack of sufficient independent income, while the respondent’s capacity to pay must also be demonstrated through credible material.
The Bench found no perversity or legal error in the reasoning adopted by the Family Court. The Family Court had correctly appreciated the rival pleadings and the evidence available on record before declining interim maintenance. The High Court therefore held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order in appellate jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Family Court rejecting the wife’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was affirmed. The judgment serves as an important reminder that maintenance claims are decided not only on considerations of need but also on the consistency of pleadings and proof of the respondent’s financial capacity. The ruling further underscores that allegations regarding a spouse’s mental incapacity carry significant legal implications and cannot be advanced without appreciating their impact on other reliefs sought in the same proceedings.