Seema has been married for twelve years. Her husband barely gives her money for groceries. He has taken a second wife. He shouts at her and has hit her twice. But Seema does not want a divorce — she has children, she still hopes things will change, and the social pressure is enormous. Does Seema have any rights?
The answer is yes — and she has more rights than most women in her situation realise. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) gives every Hindu wife the legal right to claim maintenance from her husband during his lifetime, without filing for divorce. She can also claim the right to live separately from him — on clear legal grounds — and still receive money from him.
This article explains Section 18 of HAMA, the grounds on which you can claim maintenance, how much you can get, and what steps to take.
No. This is one of the most important things to understand. The right to maintenance under Section 18 of HAMA is completely independent of divorce proceedings.
A Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband simply because she is married to him. The husband's obligation to maintain her arises from the marriage relationship itself — not from any court case or decree. As the Supreme Court held in Kiriti Kumar v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 47, this is a personal legal obligation of the husband that arises from the very existence of the marital relationship.
The wife can claim maintenance while still living with her husband (if he is not giving her money), or she can claim maintenance while living separately from him (if she has a valid reason to do so). She does not need to file for divorce, judicial separation, or any other matrimonial petition. The maintenance claim stands on its own.
Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 says:
Sub-section (1): A Hindu wife — whether married before or after the commencement of the Act — is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.
Sub-section (2): A Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband (without forfeiting her maintenance rights) on any of the seven grounds listed in the section.
Sub-section (3): A wife will not be entitled to maintenance if she is unchaste or if she ceases to be a Hindu by converting to another religion.
The burden of proving that the wife is not entitled to maintenance lies on the husband — not on the wife. This is a significant protection: you do not have to prove your case from scratch. If the husband wants to deny maintenance, he must show why.
It is important to note that Section 18 applies to a legally married Hindu wife. A wife whose marriage is void under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is generally not entitled to maintenance under HAMA Section 18 (though she may have rights under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act). Similarly, a divorced wife whose divorce decree has become final cannot claim under Section 18 — her remedy after divorce is under the Hindu Marriage Act or other applicable law.
Under Section 18(2) of HAMA, a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance on any of these seven grounds:
If the husband has abandoned the wife without reasonable cause and without her consent, or has wilfully neglected her, she can claim maintenance. The courts interpret this ground liberally — it does not require the same strict proof of "animus deserendi" (intention to desert) that is needed for a divorce on desertion grounds. Even if the husband did not take the wife with him when he moved to his place of work and left her to manage alone in the village, that can amount to desertion under this ground.
If the husband treats the wife with cruelty such that it causes a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with him, she can claim maintenance. Physical beating, verbal abuse, dowry harassment, making unfounded allegations of unchastity, and taunting her as "barren" have all been recognised as cruelty by courts. In Anubha v. Vikas Aggarwal, the wife was harassed, beaten, shouted at, mentally and physically tortured for dowry, and was not even allowed to phone her parents — the court held she was entitled to separate residence and maintenance.
If the husband has a virulent form of leprosy, the wife is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance. This is a public health ground and is interpreted in the same way as under the divorce provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.
If the husband has taken a second wife (or if he already had another wife living when he married the current wife), the wife is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. The law here is quite broad — it does not matter whether the husband is willing to keep the first wife in the house. Even if the second marriage would itself be void under the Hindu Marriage Act (because bigamy is prohibited), the first wife's right to maintenance is not affected.
If the husband keeps a concubine in the matrimonial home, or if he habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere, the wife can claim maintenance. "Habitually resides" means he visits the concubine's separate home regularly — the husband does not have to physically move in with the concubine for this ground to apply.
If the husband has stopped being a Hindu — by converting to another religion — the wife is entitled to separate residence and maintenance.
This is a residuary ground covering conduct that is blameworthy but may not fit neatly into one of the six specific grounds above. For example, if the husband sold the matrimonial home without the wife's knowledge, or if the husband's conduct makes living with him genuinely miserable even if it does not amount to full cruelty or desertion, this ground can apply. Courts have applied this broadly in favour of wives.
Section 18(3) specifies two situations where the wife will not be entitled to maintenance:
1. If she is unchaste: If the wife is living in adultery or has been unchaste, the court may deny maintenance. However, mere allegations by the husband are not enough — he must prove it. Courts have held that even an erring spouse may be granted "starving maintenance" (a minimal amount) rather than nothing at all.
2. If she ceases to be a Hindu: If the wife converts to another religion, she loses her right to maintenance under HAMA.
These two are the only specified disqualifications. The fact that the wife left the matrimonial home, that she has her own small income, or that the husband has allegations against her — none of these automatically disqualify her. The burden remains on the husband to establish disqualification.
One more point: resumption of cohabitation after maintenance is ordered does not automatically cancel the order. The order continues until the court specifically cancels it.
The amount is decided by the court using the principles set out in Section 23 of HAMA, which lists the following factors:
The Delhi High Court in Meenu Chopra v. Deepak Chopra made a powerful observation: after marriage, a wife adopts her husband's family name and his standard of living. She has a right to suffer his miseries but also to enjoy his affluence. The court rejected the husband's argument that the wife came from modest means and therefore should get a modest amount. The standard that matters is the standard of life in the matrimonial home — not the wife's family background.
In Veena Kalia v. Jatinder Nath Kalia (AIR 1996 Del), the court also allowed arrears of maintenance at Rs 10,000 per month and a lump sum of US dollars 33,000 plus Rs 10 lakh for the daughter's marriage — illustrating that courts take a broad view of what constitutes maintenance.
As a general principle, maintenance should be paid from the date of the suit — not from the date the order is passed. This is important because delays in courts are common, and you should not lose money simply because the case took time.
If you are dealing with domestic violence alongside these financial issues, reading about your rights under the Domestic Violence Act will help you understand how the two laws can be used together.
Unlike Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (which is an application in a pending matrimonial case), maintenance under HAMA Section 18 is claimed by filing a civil suit before a competent civil court. If the case is before a Family Court, it can be filed as an application there.
The wife can file the suit in the court in the jurisdiction where:
The court fee for a maintenance suit under HAMA in a Family Court is minimal — a flat Rs 2 in court fee if filed as an application, as this is not treated as a regular suit. In a civil court, normal court fees apply based on the amount claimed.
The suit should clearly state:
Even if the husband denies the marriage, you should not be denied maintenance if there is long cohabitation, children born from the relationship, or recognition of the relationship in the community.
A Section 125 CrPC (BNSS) maintenance application filed in a criminal court runs on a separate track — having one pending does not prevent you from filing a civil suit under HAMA Section 18 as well, and vice versa.
Yes. Even though Section 18 of HAMA does not expressly mention interim maintenance, courts have consistently held that the right to seek interim maintenance is implicit in the right to seek maintenance itself. Courts can use their inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant interim maintenance.
The courts have held that on a prima facie consideration of the facts, the court has full liberty to grant interim maintenance where the case justifies it. Mere denial of the marriage by the husband is not sufficient to refuse interim maintenance if there is other evidence — such as children born from the relationship or acknowledgement of the relationship in the community.
In Suresh Khullar v. Vijay Kumar (AIR 2008 Del 1), the Delhi High Court granted interim maintenance even in a complex situation where the ex-parte divorce decree was being challenged — underlining the court's protective approach towards wives who may otherwise be left without support during litigation.
