How to Reply to an Interim Maintenance Application in India: Section 24 HMA, Section 144 BNSS, Income Affidavit, Hidden Income & Rajnesh v Neha

Where can interim maintenance be claimed?

Maintenance can arise under multiple statutes. Common routes include Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the familiar Section 125 CrPC framework for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

Because these remedies may overlap, a reply must begin by identifying every existing proceeding and order. Failure to do so can produce conflicting orders and expose a party to allegations of concealment.

Rajnesh v. Neha: the starting point

In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court issued nationwide directions on maintenance litigation. The judgment addressed overlapping jurisdictions, interim maintenance, criteria for determining quantum, the date from which maintenance should run, financial disclosure and enforcement.

The Court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings. It also required applicants to disclose prior maintenance proceedings and orders so that subsequent courts can consider adjustment or set-off.

What should a respondent file with the reply?

A strong reply generally includes:

• para-wise response to the maintenance application;
• Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in the applicable format;
• salary slips or employment records;
• Income Tax Returns;
• bank statements;
• loan statements and EMI proof;
• rent agreement and rent receipts where relevant;
• medical expenses;
• dependants’ expenses;
• business accounts, GST records or company records for self-employed respondents;
• proof of maintenance already being paid;
• copies of previous maintenance orders;
• documents showing the applicant’s income or earning activity where lawfully available.

Do not hide income

Concealment is often more damaging than the income itself. Courts routinely compare affidavits with bank statements, tax records, employment documents and lifestyle evidence. Where direct proof is incomplete, courts may estimate income from surrounding circumstances.

In Sumit Singh v. Preeti Kashyap, decided by the Delhi High Court in November 2025, the Court upheld a reasoned estimation of income where bank transactions suggested income higher than the figure stated in the affidavit. The decision illustrates that a court is not bound to accept a bare self-declared income figure where the financial record points elsewhere.

What if the applicant is educated or capable of working?

Education or theoretical employability does not automatically defeat maintenance. The real issue is whether the applicant has sufficient independent income to maintain herself or himself at the relevant standard, depending on the governing statute.

A reply should therefore avoid relying on a simplistic argument such as “she is qualified, so no maintenance.” Instead, identify actual employment, earnings, business interests, investments, professional activity or other reliable evidence.

Applicant’s hidden income

If the applicant is earning but has not disclosed it, the respondent should plead the specific basis for that assertion. Relevant material may include:

• salary credits;
• employment profiles;
• GST registrations;
• company directorships;
• professional websites;
• business invoices;
• bank deposits;
• rental income;
• investment income;
• social-media material showing business operations, used cautiously and with proper evidentiary foundation.

In Sahiba Sodhi v. State NCT of Delhi, decided in December 2025, the Delhi High Court examined incomplete income disclosure by the wife and the significance of bank statements and employment history. The case demonstrates why disclosure must be accurate on both sides.

Section 144 BNSS

Section 144 BNSS provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents where a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the eligible claimant. The statutory conditions differ depending on the category of claimant.

A reply should address:

1. whether the respondent has sufficient means;
2. whether there has been neglect or refusal;
3. whether the applicant is unable to maintain herself or himself as required by the provision;
4. existing maintenance or support;
5. actual income and liabilities;
6. the applicant’s own financial position.

Section 24 HMA

Section 24 HMA permits either spouse who lacks sufficient independent income for support and necessary expenses of the proceeding to seek maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.

The provision is gender-neutral. The court examines comparative income, needs, standard of living, litigation expenses and surrounding circumstances.

Overlapping maintenance orders

One of the most important Rajnesh v. Neha directions concerns overlapping remedies. Where maintenance has already been awarded in another proceeding, the later court should be informed. The earlier order is not automatically wiped out; the court considers adjustment or set-off to avoid duplication.

A reply should therefore create a maintenance table showing:

How is income assessed for salaried employees?

For salaried respondents, courts usually examine gross salary, statutory deductions, actual net income, bonuses, reimbursements and perquisites. Artificial deductions or voluntary investments may not carry the same weight as compulsory liabilities.

A reply should distinguish legitimate fixed liabilities from discretionary expenditure.

How is income assessed for business owners?

Business income is harder to assess because taxable income may not capture actual cash flow or lifestyle. Courts may look at:

• ITRs;
• GST returns;
• bank statements;
• company balance sheets;
• director remuneration;
• shareholding;
• related-party transactions;
• loan accounts;
• business expenses that may also fund personal lifestyle.

A respondent with fluctuating income should explain the business cycle rather than merely state an average figure without documents.

Can parents and other dependants reduce maintenance?

Genuine legal and financial obligations toward dependent parents or children may be relevant. The respondent should prove them. Vague claims of “family responsibility” carry less weight than medical bills, pension details, dependency proof, school fees and recurring expenses.

Child maintenance is separate from spousal allegations

Even intense matrimonial allegations do not erase a child’s right to support. A reply should separate the spouse’s maintenance claim from child expenses and address school fees, medical expenses, transport, extracurricular costs and day-to-day needs distinctly.

What if income has recently fallen?

A recent job loss, salary reduction or business collapse should be supported by records. Courts examine whether the change is genuine, involuntary and sustained. Resignation or transfer of assets immediately before maintenance litigation may invite scrutiny.

What if the respondent is unemployed?

Unemployment does not automatically end liability. Courts may examine earning capacity, past income, qualifications, assets and the circumstances of unemployment. An able-bodied person cannot ordinarily defeat maintenance simply by remaining voluntarily unemployed.

Date from which maintenance may be awarded

Rajnesh v. Neha directed that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the maintenance application. This can create substantial arrears if the application remains pending for a long time.

Respondents should therefore avoid unnecessary delay and consider making bona fide interim payments where strategically and legally appropriate, recording those payments carefully.

How to challenge exaggerated monthly expenses

Do not merely call the expenses “false.” Break them down. Compare claimed rent with the actual residence, school fees with receipts, medical expenses with prescriptions, travel costs with records, and lifestyle claims with bank statements.

A useful reply separates:

• essential recurring expenses;
• child-specific expenses;
• one-time expenses;
• unsupported estimates;
• luxury or discretionary expenses;
• expenses already paid directly by the respondent.

Common mistakes in maintenance replies

1. Filing only denials without financial records.
2. Understating income despite obvious bank credits.
3. Not disclosing previous maintenance orders.
4. Attacking the applicant’s character instead of financial entitlement.
5. Using education alone as proof of sufficient income.
6. Failing to distinguish spouse and child maintenance.
7. Ignoring assets and lifestyle evidence.
8. Filing inconsistent income affidavits in different courts.

A practical structure for the reply

1. Preliminary submissions.
2. Statutory objections and maintainability issues, if any.
3. Disclosure of all prior maintenance proceedings.
4. True income and liabilities of respondent.
5. Applicant’s income and financial resources.
6. Para-wise response to claimed expenses.
7. Child-support position.
8. Set-off/adjustment of existing orders.
9. Prayer for appropriate quantum or dismissal, depending on facts.

Related Fastrack Legal Solutions resources

• Alimony and Maintenance in India
• Divorce Process in India
• Divorce Lawyer in Delhi: Family Court Procedure
• Delhi Family Court Appeal Guide

Primary references

• Section 144 BNSS — India Code
• Rajnesh v. Neha — Supreme Court

Frequently asked questions

Can maintenance be denied because the wife is educated?

Not merely because she is educated. The court examines whether she has sufficient independent income and the actual financial circumstances.

Can courts estimate income?

Yes. Where disclosure is incomplete, courts may draw reasonable inferences from bank records, lifestyle and surrounding material.

Must earlier maintenance orders be disclosed?

Yes. Rajnesh v. Neha requires disclosure so that adjustment or set-off can be considered and conflicting orders avoided.

What is Section 144 BNSS?

It is the current statutory maintenance provision for wives, children and parents in the BNSS framework, replacing the corresponding Section 125 CrPC mechanism.

Disclaimer: Maintenance depends on the applicable statute, income disclosures, children, prior orders, assets, liabilities and evidence. The proper reply must be tailored to the actual record.