1. Meaning of Financial Hardship in Interim Maintenance

Interim maintenance refers to financial support granted during the pendency of matrimonial or family proceedings under statutes such as:

• Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (now BNSS equivalent provisions)
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Financial hardship means the inability of a spouse (usually the applicant) to maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable to the marital lifestyle without support from the other spouse.

Courts examine:

• Income disparity between spouses
• Access to assets and property
• Employment status and earning capacity
• Dependents and liabilities
• Standard of living during marriage

2. Core Judicial Principles on Financial Hardship

(A) Maintenance is a right, not charity

Courts consistently hold that maintenance is a statutory right, not a discretionary favour.

(B) Equalization of hardship principle

The court ensures that the applicant is not reduced to destitution while also preventing undue burden on the respondent.

(C) Disclosure of true income is essential

Suppression of income or assets can lead to adverse inference.

(D) Maintenance must reflect “reasonable needs”

Not luxury, but not mere survival either.

3. Important Case Laws

1. Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316

Principle:

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

Key holding:

• “Unable to maintain herself” means inability to sustain a reasonable standard of living, not extreme poverty alone.
• Even if the wife has some income, if it is insufficient, maintenance can be granted.

Significance:

This case forms the foundation for assessing financial hardship as a relative concept, not absolute poverty.

2. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324

Principle:

This is the leading modern authority on maintenance disclosure.

Key holdings:

• Mandatory affidavit of income, assets, and liabilities for both parties.
• Courts must consider actual financial hardship through verified data.
• Standardized format for maintenance claims.

Significance:

Ensures that financial hardship claims are not speculative or exaggerated.

3. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200

Principle:

The Supreme Court clarified the quantum of interim maintenance.

Key holdings:

• 25% of net salary of husband is considered a reasonable benchmark in many cases.
• Maintenance must balance hardship of both parties.

Significance:

Provides a practical guideline for assessing economic burden and hardship.

4. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353

Principle:

Maintenance proceedings are a social justice measure.

Key holdings:

• Delay in granting maintenance defeats the purpose of law.
• Financial hardship must be relieved promptly.
• Courts must avoid procedural delays that worsen hardship.

Significance:

Emphasizes urgency in addressing financial hardship during litigation.

5. Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199

Principle:

Employment of wife does not automatically negate maintenance.

Key holdings:

• If income is insufficient, financial hardship still exists.
• The court must evaluate whether the wife can maintain her marital standard of living.

Significance:

Expands understanding of hardship beyond mere employment status.

6. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406

Principle:

Interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA depends on reasonable financial need.

Key holdings:

• Object is to ensure weaker spouse can effectively litigate.
• Court must compare financial strength of both parties.

Significance:

Establishes that financial hardship is central to access to justice in matrimonial litigation.

7. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (1985) 4 SCC 337

Principle:

Interim maintenance can be granted even without detailed inquiry.

Key holdings:

• Court can grant immediate relief if financial hardship is apparent.
• Delay would defeat the purpose of maintenance laws.

Significance:

Recognizes urgency in preventing immediate hardship.

4. Factors Courts Consider in Financial Hardship Assessment

(A) Income of both parties

Salary slips, business income, tax returns.

(B) Lifestyle during marriage

Courts attempt to preserve “marital standard of living”.

(C) Assets and hidden wealth

Bank accounts, property, investments.

(D) Capacity to earn vs actual earning

Voluntary unemployment does not defeat claim.

(E) Responsibilities

Children, aged parents, medical expenses.

5. Balancing of Hardship

Courts do not only look at the applicant’s hardship but also:

• Whether the respondent will face undue financial burden
• Whether maintenance will be oppressive or unfair
• Whether interim order can be modified later

This creates a balanced hardship doctrine, ensuring fairness to both parties.

6. Conclusion

Financial hardship in interim maintenance is not assessed in isolation but as a comparative and contextual standard. Indian courts consistently emphasize:

• Preventing destitution
• Maintaining dignity of life
• Ensuring fairness between spouses
• Preventing abuse through false financial claims

The jurisprudence from cases like Rajnesh v. Neha, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena clearly shows that interim maintenance is a social justice mechanism designed to neutralize economic imbalance during litigation.