Can a Husband Claim Maintenance From His Wife in India?
Can a Husband Claim Maintenance From His Wife in India?
Introduction
Maintenance law in India is often discussed as though it only protects wives.
That is not completely correct.
Under some matrimonial statutes, a husband can legally seek maintenance from his wife.
The clearest example is the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Sections 24 and 25 of that Act are expressly gender-neutral and allow either the wife or the husband to seek:
- interim maintenance during matrimonial proceedings;
- litigation expenses; and
- permanent alimony after a decree.
However, this does not mean that every unemployed husband automatically becomes entitled to maintenance.
Courts scrutinise such claims carefully.
A husband who is:
- healthy;
- educated;
- experienced;
- capable of earning;
- voluntarily unemployed;
- or already has independent income or assets
may find it difficult to obtain maintenance merely because his wife earns more.
A recent example is the Bombay High Court’s decision in Shilpa v. Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane, decided on 13 November 2025. The husband sought maintenance from his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Although the Family Court had awarded him ₹5,000 per month, the High Court interfered after noting that he was an able-bodied, highly qualified former Group-A railway engineer, had substantial work experience and rental income, and had failed to establish genuine inability to maintain himself.
The current position can therefore be stated simply:
Yes, a husband can claim maintenance from his wife where the governing statute permits it—but he must prove genuine financial need, not merely that the wife earns more.
Which Law Allows a Husband to Claim Maintenance?
The answer depends on the law governing the marriage and the type of maintenance sought.
This is critical because Indian maintenance law is not uniform.
Some statutes are gender-neutral.
Others expressly confer the remedy only on the wife.
Hindu Marriage Act: Husband Can Claim Maintenance
For Hindu marriages, the clearest statutory basis is found in:
- Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and
- Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Both provisions expressly refer to:
“either the wife or the husband.”
The statutory language therefore leaves no doubt that husbands are legally capable of seeking relief.
Section 24 HMA: Interim Maintenance During the Case
Section 24 deals with:
maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
In simple terms, this means financial support while a matrimonial case is still pending.
The provision applies where either spouse:
- has no independent income sufficient for support; and
- cannot adequately meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding.
The court may direct the financially stronger spouse to pay:
- litigation expenses; and
- a reasonable monthly amount during the proceedings.
The statute requires the court to consider:
- the applicant’s income; and
- the respondent spouse’s income.
Therefore, if a husband has no sufficient independent income and the wife is substantially better placed financially, Section 24 can theoretically operate in his favour.
Example: Husband With Genuine Disability
Suppose:
- the husband suffers a serious physical disability;
- he cannot continue his previous employment;
- he has no independent property or income;
- the wife earns ₹2 lakh per month;
- divorce proceedings are pending.
This is the kind of case in which a husband may have a genuine basis to seek interim maintenance under Section 24.
The court would still examine:
- medical evidence;
- financial disclosures;
- assets;
- expenses;
- and the wife’s own liabilities.
But there is no legal bar merely because the claimant is male.
Section 25 HMA: Permanent Alimony
Section 25 goes further.
It permits the matrimonial court, at the time of passing a decree or later, to award permanent alimony and maintenance to either spouse.
The court may order:
- a lump-sum payment;
- monthly payment;
- or periodical payment.
The statute requires consideration of:
- respondent’s income;
- respondent’s property;
- applicant’s income;
- applicant’s property;
- conduct of the parties;
- and other circumstances of the case.
Therefore, even after divorce, a husband can legally apply for permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Again, entitlement depends on facts.
Can a Husband Claim Maintenance Merely Because His Wife Earns More?
No.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions.
Suppose:
- husband earns ₹80,000;
- wife earns ₹2 lakh.
The salary difference alone does not automatically mean the husband should receive maintenance.
The relevant question under Section 24 is whether he lacks independent income sufficient for his support and litigation expenses.
Under Section 25, the court examines the larger financial circumstances.
Maintenance is not a mechanism for automatically equalising salaries between spouses.
Able-Bodied Husbands Face Greater Scrutiny
Indian courts have often taken the view that a healthy and employable husband should not voluntarily remain idle merely to seek maintenance from an earning wife.
This principle was strongly applied by the Bombay High Court in Shilpa v. Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane.
The husband:
- was around 41 years old;
- had worked as an Assistant Engineer, Group A, in the Indian Railways;
- was highly qualified;
- had prior professional experience;
- owned a flat;
- and had rental income.
His employment had ended following disciplinary action.
The Court held that Section 24 cannot be used to encourage an able-bodied, qualified husband to remain idle and shift the financial burden onto his wife.
This is one of the clearest recent statements on the issue.
Earlier Courts Have Taken a Similar View
The Kerala High Court has also held that a husband seeking maintenance from his wife must ordinarily demonstrate genuine incapacity.
In Nivya V.M. v. Shivaprasad N.K., the Court observed that although Section 24 is gender-neutral, maintenance to the husband is generally exceptional where he is otherwise capable of earning.
The Court rejected the idea that an able-bodied husband with skills and earning capacity could simply stop working and depend upon his wife.
Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in N. Girish v. M. Kusuma rejected a husband’s maintenance claim where the record indicated that he had chosen not to work despite being capable of earning.
Is Disability Necessary in Every Case?
Not necessarily.
The statute itself does not say:
“A husband must be physically disabled.”
Section 24 simply requires lack of sufficient independent income.
However, judicial decisions show that where an otherwise healthy, educated and employable husband seeks maintenance, courts often expect a convincing explanation for why he cannot maintain himself.
Relevant reasons might include:
- serious illness;
- physical disability;
- mental-health incapacity;
- prolonged involuntary unemployment;
- age;
- caregiving responsibilities;
- collapse of a business;
- or other genuine circumstances.
The stronger the husband’s earning capacity, the stronger the evidence of actual inability may need to be.
“Unemployed” Does Not Automatically Mean “Unable to Maintain Himself”
This distinction is important.
A person may be unemployed because:
- they lost their job despite genuine effort;
- illness prevents work;
- the industry collapsed;
- or they deliberately chose not to work.
These are not legally equivalent.
Courts may ask:
- What qualifications does he have?
- What was his previous salary?
- When did he stop working?
- Why?
- Has he applied for jobs?
- Does he have business income?
- Does he own property?
- Is he receiving rent?
- Does he have investments?
- Is his unemployment temporary or self-created?
The word “unemployed” is only the beginning of the inquiry.
What if the Husband Lost His Job Due to Misconduct?
That can seriously weaken the claim.
In Shilpa v. Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane, the Bombay High Court noted that the husband’s loss of employment followed disciplinary proceedings.
The Court was unwilling to allow him to shift the financial consequences of his own conduct onto the wife.
The broader principle is that a person should not ordinarily benefit from deliberately or culpably creating the financial condition on which the maintenance claim is based.
What if the Husband Has Rental Income?
Rental income counts.
So can:
- investment income;
- dividends;
- business income;
- consultancy fees;
- pension;
- interest;
- agricultural income;
- trust income;
- or other financial resources.
Maintenance law examines financial capacity, not merely salary.
A person cannot claim:
“I have no job”
while receiving substantial passive income.
What if the Husband Owns Property but Has No Salary?
Property ownership is relevant but not always decisive.
For example:
- a self-occupied residential flat may not generate income;
- an agricultural property may generate seasonal income;
- a commercial property may generate substantial rent.
The court examines:
- value;
- liquidity;
- income generation;
- liabilities;
- and overall financial position.
Under Section 25 HMA, the applicant’s property is expressly relevant.
Does Section 144 BNSS Allow a Husband to Claim Maintenance From His Wife?
No.
This is an important distinction.
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 125 CrPC, provides a summary maintenance remedy for specified dependants such as:
- wife;
- children;
- father;
- mother.
It does not create a corresponding right for a husband to claim maintenance from his wife merely by virtue of being her husband.
Therefore:
HMA Section 24/25 may permit a husband’s claim.
BNSS Section 144 does not.
This difference is frequently overlooked.
Why Is This Difference Important?
Because maintenance rights depend on the exact statutory provision invoked.
A husband cannot simply file a Section 144 BNSS case saying:
“My wife earns more, so she must maintain me.”
That provision does not give him such a spousal right.
If the marriage is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act and matrimonial proceedings exist, his remedy may instead lie under Sections 24 or 25 HMA.
What About the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act?
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 primarily creates maintenance rights in favour of:
- wife;
- children;
- aged or infirm parents;
- and specified dependants.
It does not create a general reciprocal right allowing a Hindu husband to claim spousal maintenance from his wife merely because she earns more.
Section 23 governs how maintenance is quantified where entitlement exists, including consideration of the claimant’s income and property.
Therefore, for husbands, the Hindu Marriage Act is the more important route.
What About the Special Marriage Act?
This is another important exception.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is not fully gender-neutral on maintenance.
Section 36 provides interim alimony to the wife where she lacks sufficient independent income.
Section 37 similarly permits permanent alimony in favour of the wife, payable by the husband.
Therefore, unlike Sections 24 and 25 HMA:
Sections 36 and 37 SMA do not expressly give the husband an equivalent maintenance remedy.
This distinction is significant for couples married under the Special Marriage Act.
What About Christian Marriages?
Under the Divorce Act, 1869, the statutory alimony provisions remain framed principally in favour of the wife.
Sections 36 and 37 provide for alimony and permanent maintenance payable by the husband to the wife.
Therefore, one cannot assume that because the HMA is gender-neutral, all Indian matrimonial statutes are equally gender-neutral.
They are not.
What About Parsi Marriages?
The position under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 is different.
Sections 39 and 40 expressly allow either the wife or the husband to seek:
- interim alimony; and
- permanent maintenance.
The court considers income and other circumstances of both spouses.
Thus, like the Hindu Marriage Act, the Parsi law is expressly gender-neutral in this respect.
Personal Law Matters
The correct answer therefore depends significantly on:
- religion;
- type of marriage;
- statute under which marriage was solemnised;
- and procedural route being used.
A broad statement that:
“Indian law allows all husbands maintenance”
would be inaccurate.
So would the statement:
“Indian law never allows husbands maintenance.”
The truth lies between those extremes.
Can a Husband Claim Maintenance Under the Domestic Violence Act?
Generally, no.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is designed to provide remedies to an aggrieved woman in a domestic relationship.
Its monetary-relief mechanism does not create a reciprocal maintenance remedy enabling a husband to claim maintenance from his wife as an aggrieved husband.
A male spouse must therefore rely on another legally applicable provision.
Can a Husband Claim Child Support From the Wife?
Yes, potentially.
Child maintenance is different from spousal maintenance.
Both parents have responsibilities toward their children.
Where:
- the children live with the father;
- the mother has substantial income;
- and the father bears day-to-day expenses,
the court may consider an appropriate financial contribution from the mother depending on the governing law and circumstances.
The fact that the custodial parent is male does not extinguish the child’s right to support from the other parent.
Example: Father Has Custody, Mother Earns More
Suppose:
- father earns ₹60,000;
- mother earns ₹2 lakh;
- two children live with the father;
- education and medical expenses are substantial.
Even if the father does not qualify for personal spousal maintenance, the mother may still be required to contribute appropriately toward the children’s expenses.
Spousal maintenance and child support should be analysed separately.
Can the Husband Claim Litigation Expenses Even if Monthly Maintenance Is Refused?
Potentially, yes.
Section 24 HMA covers both:
- maintenance pendente lite; and
- necessary expenses of the proceeding.
A spouse may have enough income for basic survival but lack resources to fairly conduct prolonged matrimonial litigation against a financially stronger spouse.
The court can assess the two components independently.
The purpose of Section 24 is to prevent financial inequality from making matrimonial litigation practically inaccessible.
What Factors Will the Court Consider?
A husband seeking maintenance may have to disclose:
- current income;
- previous income;
- educational qualifications;
- professional experience;
- health;
- disability;
- age;
- employment attempts;
- bank accounts;
- investments;
- property;
- rental income;
- business interests;
- liabilities;
- living expenses;
- and dependants.
The wife’s financial position will also be examined.
Relevant evidence may include:
- salary slips;
- tax returns;
- bank statements;
- business accounts;
- assets;
- liabilities;
- and expenses.
Income Difference Alone Is Not Enough
Consider:
Case A
Husband earns ₹1 lakh.
Wife earns ₹4 lakh.
The husband is financially self-sufficient.
The fact that she earns four times more does not automatically entitle him to maintenance.
Case B
Husband has a permanent disability, no income and significant medical expenses.
Wife earns ₹4 lakh.
His claim is materially stronger.
The statute protects financial need, not salary jealousy.
What if the Husband Was a Homemaker?
This is an increasingly relevant question.
Suppose the husband:
- left employment;
- cared for children;
- managed the household;
- relocated repeatedly for the wife’s career;
- and became economically dependent during a long marriage.
That factual pattern may support a much stronger claim under a gender-neutral statute such as Sections 24 and 25 HMA.
Nothing in those provisions restricts maintenance only to husbands who became dependent through illness.
The court should consider the genuine economic structure of the marriage.
Stay-at-Home Fathers
A husband who stayed home as the primary caregiver should not automatically be treated as “idle.”
The court should distinguish between:
voluntary avoidance of work
and
economic dependence created by mutually accepted family responsibilities.
Evidence may include:
- duration of caregiving;
- age of children;
- prior employment;
- career break;
- wife’s career progression;
- household arrangements;
- and present re-entry prospects.
What if the Wife Says the Husband Is Capable of Working?
She can raise that defence.
The husband should then be prepared to show why his present need is genuine.
For example:
- medical incapacity;
- unsuccessful documented job search;
- caregiving responsibility;
- significant career gap;
- age-related difficulty;
- or another credible reason.
Courts may reject claims based merely on passive unemployment.
2025 Bombay High Court: Important Current Example
The 2025 Shilpa v. Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane decision deserves particular attention.
The Family Court had awarded the husband:
- ₹5,000 per month interim maintenance; and
- ₹25,000 litigation expenses.
The wife challenged that order.
The Bombay High Court examined the husband’s circumstances and found that he:
- was highly qualified;
- had worked as a Group-A engineer;
- was able-bodied;
- had significant employment experience;
- owned property;
- and received rental income.
The Court concluded that merely being presently unemployed did not establish genuine inability to maintain himself.
The case illustrates the modern judicial approach:
formal gender equality gives a husband the right to apply, but factual scrutiny determines whether he should receive anything.
Does the Wife’s Higher Salary Create a Presumption in the Husband’s Favour?
No.
A maintenance proceeding is not a comparison designed simply to identify which spouse earns less.
The applicant must first establish the statutory basis for support.
A husband earning ₹2 lakh cannot ordinarily demand maintenance merely because his wife earns ₹10 lakh.
The court may recognise income inequality without concluding that financial dependence exists.
Can a Husband Deliberately Quit His Job and Claim Maintenance?
Courts are likely to view such conduct critically.
Where a person intentionally creates unemployment in order to obtain maintenance, the claim may be rejected.
The same broader principle can apply to either spouse: maintenance law is not meant to reward deliberate economic inactivity.
But actual facts must be proved.
A court should not infer voluntary unemployment without evidence.
What if the Husband’s Business Failed?
Business failure does not automatically defeat the claim.
The court may ask:
- Was the failure genuine?
- Is the business permanently closed?
- Does he retain assets?
- Are there outstanding receivables?
- Can he restart work?
- What is his professional background?
- Is the income loss temporary?
A genuine financial collapse can be materially different from deliberately stopping work.
What if the Husband Is Retired?
A retired husband may potentially have a stronger case where:
- pension is inadequate;
- he has substantial medical needs;
- the wife has significant income or assets;
- and the relevant statute permits maintenance.
However, pension, retirement corpus, property and investments will all be relevant.
Retirement does not automatically create entitlement.
Can Maintenance Be a Lump Sum?
Yes under Section 25 HMA.
Permanent alimony can be ordered as:
- gross/lump-sum payment;
- monthly payment;
- or periodical payment.
The form of relief depends on the circumstances.
Can the Order Be Changed Later?
Yes.
Section 25 permits modification where circumstances materially change.
For example:
- husband obtains a high-paying job;
- wife loses employment;
- serious illness occurs;
- either party’s financial position changes substantially;
- or other relevant circumstances arise.
Permanent maintenance is therefore not necessarily frozen forever.
What if the Husband Remarries?
Under Section 25(3) HMA, remarriage of the recipient can be relevant to variation, modification or rescission of the permanent-alimony order.
The provision also expressly permits review in specified post-decree circumstances.
A former husband should therefore not assume that a maintenance order continues unchanged regardless of later personal circumstances.
Maintenance Is Not Automatic Punishment of the Higher-Earning Wife
This principle is important.
Maintenance is not awarded because:
- the wife initiated divorce;
- she earns more;
- her career succeeded;
- or the husband feels economically disadvantaged.
The purpose is to address genuine financial need under the governing statute.
A financially successful woman is not automatically required to subsidise an able-bodied and financially independent former husband.
Nor Should Gender Stereotypes Defeat a Genuine Claim
The reverse is also true.
A court should not reject a legitimate husband simply because:
“Men are supposed to earn.”
If Parliament has deliberately used the words:
“either the wife or the husband,”
the provision must be applied according to its text.
A husband who is genuinely dependent and unable to maintain himself should not be denied relief merely because of gender stereotypes.
Gender Neutrality Does Not Mean Identical Outcomes
Sections 24 and 25 HMA are legally gender-neutral.
But equality of legal access does not mean every husband’s claim will succeed.
Courts decide on evidence.
Historically, wives may more frequently have been economically dependent because of:
- caregiving roles;
- employment gaps;
- social conditions;
- and unequal labour participation.
That practical reality can produce different outcomes without changing the gender-neutral statutory wording.
Can the Husband Claim Maintenance Under Both HMA and BNSS?
He cannot use Section 144 BNSS as a husband seeking spousal maintenance from his wife because that provision does not create such a right for husbands.
Where applicable, he may seek relief under:
- Section 24 HMA during proceedings; and
- Section 25 HMA for permanent alimony.
The exact availability depends on the matrimonial proceeding and governing statute.
Can a Husband File Section 24 Application Before Divorce Is Filed?
Section 24 operates in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act.
It is not a standalone maintenance proceeding available completely outside matrimonial litigation.
There must therefore be a proceeding under the HMA in which the Section 24 application is made.
This is an important procedural limitation.
When Can Section 25 Be Invoked?
Section 25 can be invoked:
- at the time of passing a decree; or
- at any time subsequent to the decree,
subject to the requirements of the provision.
This makes it broader in timing than Section 24, which is aimed at support during proceedings.
What Is the Difference Between Interim and Permanent Maintenance?
Interim maintenance
Temporary support while the matrimonial litigation is pending.
Main provision for Hindu spouses:
Section 24 HMA.
Permanent alimony
Longer-term or lump-sum financial support connected with the matrimonial decree.
Main provision:
Section 25 HMA.
A husband may qualify for one and not necessarily the other.
Practical Example 1: Disabled Husband
Husband cannot work because of permanent disability.
Wife is a senior executive earning ₹4 lakh per month.
The husband has no significant assets.
A claim under Section 24 or Section 25 HMA may have substantial merit.
Practical Example 2: Voluntarily Unemployed Engineer
Husband is healthy, highly qualified and previously earned a strong salary.
He voluntarily remains unemployed and provides no evidence of genuine job-seeking.
Wife earns ₹1.5 lakh.
A court may refuse maintenance.
The Bombay High Court’s 2025 reasoning strongly supports such scrutiny.
Practical Example 3: Husband Earns ₹70,000, Wife Earns ₹3 Lakh
The husband is fully capable of maintaining himself.
The wife earns much more.
The income disparity alone does not establish entitlement.
Practical Example 4: Stay-at-Home Father
The husband left employment for eight years to care for two young children while the wife built a demanding professional career.
After separation, he has limited current income and faces difficulty immediately returning to his former earning level.
A court should assess the genuine economic consequences of the caregiving arrangement rather than dismiss the claim merely because he is male.
Practical Example 5: Husband Has Rental Property
The husband says he has no salary.
He owns two rented properties producing ₹90,000 per month.
His claim for maintenance is likely to be examined in light of that independent income.
Practical Example 6: Wife Also Has Major Liabilities
Even where the wife earns substantially more, the court may consider:
- dependent parents;
- children living with her;
- housing costs;
- medical expenses;
- loans;
- and other genuine liabilities.
Gross salary alone does not decide quantum.
Common Myths
Myth 1: “Only wives can claim maintenance in India.”
Incorrect.
Under Sections 24 and 25 HMA, either spouse can apply.
Myth 2: “An unemployed husband automatically gets maintenance.”
Incorrect.
Courts examine whether the unemployment reflects genuine inability or voluntary idleness.
Myth 3: “If the wife earns more, she must pay.”
Incorrect.
Income disparity alone does not create automatic entitlement.
Myth 4: “A husband can claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS.”
Incorrect as a spousal claim.
Section 144 creates a wife-focused spousal remedy and does not confer reciprocal maintenance rights on husbands.
Myth 5: “All matrimonial laws in India are gender-neutral on maintenance.”
Incorrect.
The Hindu Marriage Act and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act contain gender-neutral provisions, while the Special Marriage Act’s alimony provisions are framed in favour of the wife.
Myth 6: “A husband must always prove permanent disability.”
Too broad.
The statute does not expressly impose that universal requirement, although courts often demand strong proof of genuine inability where an able-bodied and employable husband seeks support.
Myth 7: “Maintenance equalises both spouses’ salaries.”
Incorrect.
Maintenance addresses financial need and fairness, not automatic salary parity.
What Evidence Should a Husband Produce?
A serious maintenance application should include evidence of:
- employment history;
- present unemployment;
- job applications;
- medical condition where relevant;
- disability records;
- bank statements;
- tax returns;
- property;
- rent;
- investments;
- expenses;
- liabilities;
- and dependants.
If the claim is based on childcare or career sacrifice, evidence of that arrangement can also be important.
What Evidence Can the Wife Use to Oppose the Claim?
The wife may rely on evidence showing that the husband:
- is employed;
- has business income;
- owns income-generating property;
- concealed assets;
- voluntarily resigned;
- refuses available work;
- has professional qualifications and strong earning history;
- or otherwise has sufficient means.
The 2025 Bombay High Court case illustrates how prior employment and rental income can defeat a claim.
Practical Checklist for Courts
When a husband seeks maintenance from his wife, relevant questions include:
- Which matrimonial statute governs the marriage?
- Does that statute permit a husband to claim?
- Is a qualifying matrimonial proceeding pending?
- What is the husband’s actual income?
- What assets does he own?
- Does he earn rent or investment income?
- Is he physically and mentally capable of work?
- What is his employment history?
- Why is he unemployed?
- Has he genuinely attempted to find work?
- Did he sacrifice employment for family caregiving?
- What is the wife’s actual income?
- What are her liabilities and dependants?
- Are children living with either spouse?
- What level of support is genuinely necessary and reasonable?
The decision should be based on evidence, not assumptions about gender.
The Most Important Distinction: Right to Apply vs Right to Receive
This is perhaps the most useful way to understand the law.
Under Section 24 and Section 25 HMA:
a husband clearly has a right to apply.
But that does not mean:
he automatically has a right to receive maintenance.
The application opens the door.
The evidence determines the result.
That is why two statements can both be true:
“Indian law allows husbands to claim maintenance.”
and
“Courts frequently reject claims by able-bodied husbands who can support themselves.”
There is no contradiction between them.
Conclusion
Can a husband claim maintenance from his wife in India?
Yes, under some laws—but not under every maintenance statute.
For Hindu marriages, Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 expressly permit either spouse to seek financial support.
Section 24 allows an eligible husband to seek:
- interim maintenance; and
- litigation expenses
where he lacks sufficient independent income during matrimonial proceedings.
Section 25 allows either husband or wife to seek permanent alimony after or at the time of a matrimonial decree.
The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act similarly allows either spouse to seek interim and permanent maintenance under Sections 39 and 40.
But this gender-neutral approach is not universal.
Section 144 BNSS does not create a reciprocal spousal-maintenance right in favour of husbands.
Likewise, Sections 36 and 37 of the Special Marriage Act are framed in favour of the wife rather than either spouse.
The real difficulty for husbands is therefore often not statutory eligibility under the HMA, but proving genuine financial dependence.
The Bombay High Court’s November 2025 judgment in Shilpa v. Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane is particularly instructive.
It rejected a husband’s interim maintenance claim despite his wife’s employment because he was:
- able-bodied;
- highly qualified;
- professionally experienced;
- capable of earning;
- and receiving rental income.
That judgment reflects the practical approach courts frequently take.
Maintenance should assist a spouse who genuinely lacks sufficient means.
It should not encourage voluntary unemployment.
But the opposite stereotype is equally problematic.
A husband who is genuinely:
- disabled;
- economically dependent;
- unable to work;
- or financially disadvantaged after having assumed substantial caregiving responsibilities
should not be denied access to a gender-neutral statutory remedy merely because he is male.
The correct legal principle is therefore:
Indian law can require an earning wife to maintain her husband where the governing statute permits it and the husband establishes genuine financial need—but the court will closely examine whether he is truly dependent or simply capable of maintaining himself.
This article reflects the statutory framework and publicly available judicial position up to September 2026. Maintenance rights vary according to the law governing the marriage, the procedural remedy invoked and the financial circumstances of both spouses. This article is intended for general legal information and academic discussion and does not constitute legal advice.
