How to Defend a Maintenance Case in India: Section 144 BNSS, Section 24 HMA, DV Act, Income Affidavit & Rajnesh v. Neha

Defending a maintenance case in India requires a statute-specific and evidence-led approach. A reply that merely says that the claimant is educated, capable of earning or making exaggerated allegations is rarely enough. The court will examine the exact maintenance provision invoked, the income and assets of both sides, the standard of living during marriage, child-related obligations, genuine liabilities, prior maintenance orders, actual payments and the financial disclosures filed before the court.

The legal position is also different under different statutes. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) concerns maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is gender-neutral and permits either spouse to seek maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses where the statutory test is met. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 separately permits monetary relief, including maintenance, in an appropriate case. A respondent should therefore first identify the statute, forum, stage and relief before preparing a defence.

Key Takeaways

Do not hide income. A false financial affidavit can destroy credibility and lead to adverse inference.
File a complete assets-and-liabilities disclosure and insist on corresponding disclosure by the claimant.
Separate the claimant’s personal maintenance from genuine child expenses.
Disclose every parallel maintenance case and seek adjustment of amounts already ordered or paid.
Under Section 144 BNSS, statutory disqualifications such as living in adultery, unjustified refusal to live with the husband, or separation by mutual consent must be specifically pleaded and proved where factually applicable.
Education or earning capacity alone does not automatically defeat maintenance; actual income and sufficient means matter.
Assume that arrears may run from the date of the application and plan the litigation accordingly.

1. First Identify Which Maintenance Provision Is Invoked

The word “maintenance” is used across several Indian statutes, but the legal tests are not identical. A proper defence begins by identifying the exact source of jurisdiction.

Proceeding	Provision	Core issue
Summary maintenance	Section 144 BNSS, 2023	Wife, children and parents; sufficient means, neglect/refusal, inability to maintain and statutory defences.
Interim maintenance in HMA case	Section 24 HMA, 1955	Either spouse; whether applicant lacks independent income sufficient for support and litigation expenses.
Permanent alimony	Section 25 HMA	Income and property of both parties, conduct and other circumstances.
DV Act monetary relief	Section 20, DV Act, 2005	Monetary relief consequent upon domestic violence, including maintenance and specified losses/expenses.

For a detailed explanation of the BNSS framework, see Section 144 BNSS Maintenance: Wife, Children & Parents, Interim Maintenance and Enforcement.

2. Section 144 BNSS: What the Applicant Must Establish

Section 144 BNSS empowers a Magistrate of the first class to order maintenance where a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain a wife unable to maintain herself, specified children, or a father or mother unable to maintain himself or herself. The provision also permits interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings.

A defence should therefore address the statutory ingredients separately:

Does the respondent have “sufficient means” and what are those means?
Was there neglect or refusal to maintain?
Is the claimant legally within the class entitled under the provision?
Is the wife actually unable to maintain herself?
What amounts have already been voluntarily paid?
Are there previous or parallel maintenance orders?
Are any statutory disqualifications under Section 144(4) applicable?

The reply should not deny everything indiscriminately. Where the respondent has paid school fees, rent, medical expenses, household support, transfers or other amounts, those payments should be pleaded with dates and proof.

3. Statutory Defences Under Section 144(4) BNSS

Section 144(4) expressly provides that a wife is not entitled to maintenance or interim maintenance under that section if she is living in adultery, if without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or if the parties are living separately by mutual consent. Section 144(5) provides for cancellation of an existing order on proof of those conditions.

These are statutory defences, but they are not self-proving labels. The respondent must plead and prove the relevant facts. A bare allegation of adultery without reliable evidence can be damaging. Similarly, refusal to cohabit will not defeat maintenance where the wife has a legally sufficient reason for living separately. The statute itself recognises that a husband’s contracting another marriage or keeping a mistress constitutes just ground for the wife’s refusal to live with him.

Accordingly, a defence based on Section 144(4) should identify the exact clause relied upon, supporting dates and events, documentary or testimonial evidence, and the reason why the claimant’s explanation should not be accepted.

4. Section 24 HMA Is Different: Either Spouse Can Apply

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is gender-neutral. It permits either the wife or the husband to seek maintenance pendente lite and necessary expenses of the proceeding where that spouse has no independent income sufficient for support and litigation expenses.

This distinction matters. A husband defending a Section 24 application should not rely mechanically on the Section 144 BNSS disqualifications. The inquiry under Section 24 is principally financial and procedural: the applicant’s independent income, the respondent’s income and means, the parties’ needs, litigation expenses and the circumstances of the matrimonial proceeding.

Likewise, a husband who genuinely lacks sufficient independent income may himself invoke Section 24, provided the claim is bona fide and supported by financial disclosure.

5. Rajnesh v. Neha: Financial Disclosure Is Central to Maintenance Litigation

In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court laid down a uniform framework for maintenance proceedings. The judgment is critical because it requires financial transparency and addresses overlapping maintenance claims, the date from which maintenance should ordinarily operate, and enforcement.

The respondent should prepare the case on the assumption that income and assets will be tested against records. The disclosure should ordinarily cover salary, business or professional income, bank accounts, tax returns, investments, property, loans, dependants, recurring expenses, child-related expenditure and earlier maintenance orders.

The Supreme Court has continued to direct parties to file affidavits in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha; for example, in an order dated 17 January 2025 it directed both parties to file the prescribed affidavits with relevant documents.

6. How to Prepare the Respondent’s Income Affidavit

A strong maintenance defence begins with an accurate financial affidavit. The aim is not to appear poor; the aim is to present the real disposable financial position.

Income documents

Salary slips and employment contract.
Form 16 and income-tax returns.
Bank statements showing salary or business receipts.
Business financial statements, GST filings and drawings, where applicable.
Professional receipts, consultancy income or partnership remuneration.
Rental income, interest, dividends and investment income.

Liability documents

Rent or housing expenses actually paid.
Genuine loan instalments supported by sanction documents and statements.
Medical expenditure.
Dependent-parent expenses where actually borne.
Existing court-ordered maintenance.
Direct child-related expenditure.

Artificial liabilities created after matrimonial litigation begins should not be presented as if they automatically outrank maintenance obligations. Courts may scrutinise timing, necessity and genuineness.

7. How to Test the Claimant’s Financial Disclosure

The respondent is entitled to challenge a claim of financial dependency with lawful evidence. The proper questions are:

Is the claimant presently employed?
Was employment recently discontinued, and if so, when and why?
What income appears in tax returns, salary records or bank credits?
Does the claimant own income-producing property?
Is there a business, profession, consultancy or freelance activity?
Are there undisclosed investments, deposits or rental receipts?
Do pleadings in another case contain admissions inconsistent with the maintenance affidavit?
Are claimed monthly expenses supported by records?

For the specific issue of an earning or financially independent wife, see Wife’s Income and Maintenance Claims in India: Husband’s Legal Defence and Financial Disclosure.

8. Education or Capacity to Earn Is Not the Same as Actual Sufficient Income

A recurring mistake in maintenance litigation is to argue that a wife should receive no maintenance merely because she is educated or theoretically capable of earning. The stronger legal inquiry is whether she has actual income or sufficient financial means in the circumstances of the case.

Qualifications, past employment and professional experience remain relevant, particularly where they are linked with evidence of current work, recent resignation, business activity or suppressed earnings. But a degree certificate by itself does not prove a present salary.

The defence should therefore move from assertion to proof: identify the employer, income stream, bank credit, tax record, professional listing or other admissible material.

9. Overlapping Maintenance Proceedings: Adjustment, Not Double Recovery

A spouse may invoke more than one statutory route for maintenance. Rajnesh v. Neha requires disclosure of previous proceedings and orders and provides a framework for adjustment so that maintenance granted in one proceeding is considered in another.

A respondent should file a consolidated table:

Case	Provision	Order date	Monthly amount	Amount paid	Adjustment sought
Proceeding 1	Section 144 BNSS / earlier Section 125 CrPC	—	—	—	Yes
Proceeding 2	Section 24 HMA	—	—	—	Yes
Proceeding 3	Section 20 DV Act	—	—	—	Yes

Do not conceal a previous order because it appears unfavourable. Non-disclosure is usually worse than the order itself.

10. Wife’s Personal Maintenance and Child Maintenance Must Be Analysed Separately

Even where a wife has independent income, child maintenance remains a separate question. The child’s right to support should not be converted into leverage in a matrimonial dispute.

A respondent who is already paying school fees, tuition, insurance or medical expenses directly should place proof on record and ask the court to account for those payments. Whether direct payments will be fully adjusted depends on the wording of the existing order and the facts; a party should not unilaterally assume that an expense can be substituted for an ordered monthly amount.

11. The Date of Maintenance Can Create Large Arrears

Section 144(2) BNSS states that maintenance or interim maintenance is payable from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the application. However, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha directed that maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing the application. In Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 528, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of making maintenance effective from the application date.

In Sanyogita Gupta & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Gupta, decided on 27 February 2026, the Delhi High Court applied these principles while considering the effective date of interim maintenance.

For defence planning, this means that potential arrears should be calculated from the filing date unless the record gives a legally sustainable basis for a different result. A party should not wait for the final order before assessing exposure.

12. How to Draft the Reply to a Maintenance Application

A structured reply is usually stronger than a narrative attack. A practical format is:

Preliminary facts: marriage, separation, children, pending proceedings and existing orders.
Statutory response: answer each ingredient of the provision invoked.
Claimant’s income: employment, business, assets and supporting records.
Respondent’s income: complete disclosure with documentary proof.
Liabilities: genuine and evidenced liabilities only.
Child expenditure: separate calculation and proof.
Existing payments: bank transfers, fees, rent, medical or other payments.
Parallel proceedings: all maintenance applications and orders.
Statutory defences: where applicable and provable.
Prayer: dismissal, reasonable fixation, adjustment, production of records, modification or other legally available relief.

13. Evidence That Commonly Matters

Depending on the case, useful material may include:

Bank statements and salary credits.
Income-tax returns, Form 16, AIS/26AS obtained through lawful process.
Employment letters and company records.
GST filings and business records.
Property and rental documents.
School fee receipts and child medical expenses.
Existing maintenance orders and proof of compliance.
Admissions contained in divorce, DV, custody or criminal pleadings.
Electronic communications relevant to income, residence or financial arrangements, proved in accordance with the applicable law of evidence.

Illegally accessing a spouse’s private email, banking credentials, phone or cloud account is not a legitimate evidence strategy.

14. Cross-Examination in Maintenance Proceedings

Where oral evidence and cross-examination become necessary, the objective should be to test financial assertions rather than conduct a character attack. Relevant lines may concern:

Employment history and dates.
Declared bank accounts.
Tax returns and professional receipts.
Property ownership and rent.
Actual monthly expenses.
Prior maintenance orders.
Payments already received.
Contradictions between the affidavit and other pleadings.

The credibility of the financial case usually matters more than rhetorical aggression.

15. What If Income Changes After the Order?

A maintenance order is not necessarily immutable. A genuine and substantial change in circumstances may justify an application for alteration, modification or other appropriate relief under the governing statute. Under the BNSS framework, Section 146 deals with alteration in allowance.

A respondent relying on loss of employment, retirement, illness, reduction of business income or new legal obligations must show the change with reliable documents. A voluntary or strategic reduction of income after litigation begins may be scrutinised closely.

16. Enforcement: Do Not Ignore a Subsisting Order

Once maintenance is ordered, it should be complied with unless stayed, modified or set aside by a competent court. Filing an appeal or revision does not by itself erase the operative order.

Section 147 BNSS deals with enforcement of maintenance orders. The broader principle is simple: challenge the order through the correct legal remedy, but do not treat it as optional while it remains in force.

17. Common Defence Mistakes

Claiming poverty while bank records show substantial unexplained credits.
Arguing only that the wife is educated.
Failing to file the income affidavit on time.
Concealing another maintenance order.
Mixing child support with the wife’s personal claim.
Creating loans or transfers after litigation to reduce apparent income.
Ignoring potential arrears from the application date.
Making allegations of adultery without evidence.
Stopping payment merely because an appeal has been filed.
Using abusive language instead of responding to the financial record.

18. Maintenance Defence Checklist

Item	Why it matters
Identify statute and forum	Different provisions have different tests.
Prepare master chronology	Prevents contradictions across cases.
File complete financial affidavit	Builds credibility and satisfies disclosure requirements.
Collect claimant-income proof	Tests dependency and quantum.
List child expenses separately	Prevents conflation with spousal maintenance.
List all prior orders	Allows adjustment and prevents duplication.
Calculate arrears exposure	Maintenance may operate from application date.
Check statutory defences	Section 144(4) may be decisive where proved.
Continue compliance with subsisting orders	Avoids enforcement consequences.

19. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a working wife still get maintenance?

Yes. Employment does not automatically defeat maintenance. The court examines whether the income is sufficient in the circumstances, together with the parties’ respective means and the governing statute.

Can maintenance be denied because the wife is highly educated?

Not merely on that basis. Education and earning capacity are relevant, but actual income, financial resources and evidence of employment or business activity are more important.

Can a husband seek maintenance under Section 24 HMA?

Yes. Section 24 HMA applies to either spouse if the statutory requirement of insufficient independent income is met.

Can a wife claim maintenance under more than one law?

Claims may arise under different enactments, but previous proceedings and orders must be disclosed and adjustment should be considered in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha.

Can a husband stop paying after filing an appeal?

No automatic stay arises merely from filing a challenge. The subsisting order should be complied with unless stayed, modified or set aside.

From what date is maintenance normally payable?

The Supreme Court’s maintenance jurisprudence, including Rajnesh v. Neha and Shahjahan, supports award from the date of the maintenance application. The exact order and governing provision should nevertheless be read carefully.

20. Related Fastrack Legal Solutions Resources

Authoritative Legal Sources

Conclusion

The strongest maintenance defence is not based on hostility to the claimant. It is based on statutory ingredients, complete disclosure, reliable financial evidence, proper treatment of child expenses, adjustment of overlapping orders and compliance with subsisting directions. A respondent who presents a coherent financial record is in a much stronger position than one who relies on general allegations of misuse.

Author: Adv. Govind Bali, Fastrack Legal Solutions LLP.

This article is intended solely for general legal awareness and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, solicitation, advertisement or an invitation to establish an advocate-client relationship. Maintenance proceedings are fact-sensitive and the applicable statute, personal law, forum, pleadings, financial evidence and current judicial position should be examined before any legal step is taken.

Fastrack Legal Solutions