The question comes up more often than people expect, and the honest answer surprises them. Can a husband claim maintenance from his wife in India? Yes, he can, but only under particular statutes and only in particular circumstances. The maintenance provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are written in gender-neutral language, so a husband is not shut out at the threshold. What decides the result is not his gender but his financial position, the gap between the two incomes, and whether he can show a genuine inability to maintain himself. This guide sets out where the right comes from, where it does not exist, and how a court actually treats such a claim.
Can a husband claim maintenance from his wife under the Hindu Marriage Act?
For couples married under Hindu law, the answer sits in two sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and both are drafted to apply to either spouse.
Section 24 (maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings) allows a court, in any pending proceeding under the Act, to order interim maintenance and the expenses of the litigation where the applicant has no independent income sufficient for support. The section speaks of "the wife or the husband, as the case may be." That phrase is the whole point: the drafters deliberately made interim maintenance available to whichever spouse is the weaker earner, not to the wife alone.
Section 25 (permanent alimony and maintenance) works the same way. When a court passes a decree, whether of divorce, judicial separation, nullity or restitution, or at any time afterwards, it may order the respondent to pay the applicant a gross sum or a monthly or periodical sum for maintenance and support. Again the statute says the application may be made "by either the wife or the husband." So a husband who satisfies the court is, in principle, entitled to permanent alimony from his wife.
The key language: Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 both refer to "the wife or the husband, as the case may be." Maintenance under these sections turns on need and the capacity to pay, not on the sex of the applicant.
Why Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) does not help a husband
There is a second, better-known maintenance route, and this one is not open to a husband. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which has been re-enacted as Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in force from 1 July 2024), lets a Magistrate order a monthly allowance for a wife, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves and whose provider has neglected or refused to maintain them despite having sufficient means. The word used is "wife." A husband is not a claimant under this provision. The purpose of the section is to prevent destitution, and the legislature confined the spousal claim to the wife, which in settled law includes a divorced wife who has not remarried.
So the two routes point in different directions. If you are a husband, the door marked Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS is closed. The door marked Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is open, provided you can walk through it.
| Feature | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Sections 24 & 25) | Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| Who can claim | Either spouse, the wife or the husband | Wife, children and parents (a husband cannot claim) |
| Nature of relief | Interim maintenance (s. 24) and permanent alimony (s. 25) within matrimonial proceedings | Standalone summary maintenance order |
| Forum | The court hearing the matrimonial petition, usually the Family Court | The Magistrate |
| Core precondition | A pending or concluded proceeding under the Act | Neglect or refusal to maintain by a person of sufficient means |
| Governing test | Applicant has no independent income sufficient for support | Claimant is unable to maintain herself or himself (for the wife, children or parents) |
When a husband can realistically claim maintenance
Gender-neutral wording is not the same as an automatic entitlement. In practice, a husband's claim under Section 24 or Section 25 has a fair chance only where the facts show real need and a real disparity. The situations where courts have been willing to look seriously at a husband's claim tend to share these features.
- Physical or mental incapacity. A husband who is disabled, seriously ill, or otherwise unable to earn for reasons beyond his control presents the strongest case, because the section is built around an applicant who has no independent income sufficient for support.
- A wide, provable income gap. Where the wife is substantially better placed, for example a well-paid professional, and the husband has little or no income, the disparity itself can justify interim support so that the weaker party can run the litigation on an equal footing.
- No independent means during the case. Section 24 is concerned with the present reality of a pending proceeding: can the applicant support himself and meet the costs of the litigation while it is on?
The burden sits on the husband. He must place his own income, assets and earning capacity before the court honestly, and he must show why he cannot maintain himself. Courts are alert to the able-bodied, qualified man who simply prefers not to work. Voluntary unemployment, concealed income, or an attempt to use the section as a bargaining tool will usually sink the claim. Judges routinely assess earning capacity, not just actual earnings, so a healthy graduate who could work but chooses not to is unlikely to be handed maintenance from his wife.
Why courts scrutinise: Maintenance exists to prevent a spouse from being left without support, not to reward a spouse who can support himself but would rather not. When the applicant is a husband who is fit to earn, courts examine the claim closely and weigh his real earning capacity against the wife's means.
In reported matrimonial cases, courts have on occasion directed a wife to pay interim maintenance to a husband under Section 24 where he had no independent income and she was the significantly stronger earner. These outcomes remain the exception rather than the norm, and they turn entirely on the evidence of need and capacity that each side puts on record. Because they are so fact-driven, no husband should assume a favourable result from the gender-neutral wording alone.
How a court fixes the amount
Whether the applicant is a husband or a wife, the exercise a court performs is broadly the same. It looks at the income and assets of both spouses, their reasonable needs, the standard of living during the marriage, the applicant's own earning capacity, existing liabilities and responsibilities such as the maintenance of children or parents, and the conduct of the parties where relevant. There is no fixed formula and no fixed percentage that binds the court; the figure is a matter of judicial discretion applied to proven facts. For a husband, this means the quality of his financial disclosure often matters more than any legal argument, because the court is trying to establish two things: that he genuinely cannot maintain himself, and that the wife has the capacity to contribute.
It is worth being clear about what the two sections do not do. Neither section guarantees a payout. A court can decline maintenance to a husband altogether if it finds that he is able to support himself, that the disparity is modest, or that his own conduct disentitles him. Interim maintenance under Section 24 also lasts only for the duration of the proceeding; it is not a permanent arrangement, and it can be revisited as the case develops. Permanent alimony under Section 25 is the longer-term relief, but even that is open to variation, reduction or cancellation if the facts change, for instance if the husband later begins to earn or the wife's own circumstances shift.
From experience on the litigation side, the husbands who succeed are almost never the ones who arrive saying the law is gender-neutral so they are entitled. They are the ones who arrive with medical records, income tax returns, bank statements and an honest account of why they cannot presently earn. The court is not moved by the abstract principle; it is moved by the documents. A husband who wants his claim taken seriously should expect his own finances to be examined just as searchingly as a wife's would be, and should be ready to explain every gap.
Maintenance and alimony sit within a larger set of questions that a separating couple has to work through. If you are weighing what a court looks at when it fixes long-term support, our guide on the factors that decide permanent alimony goes through them one by one. To understand the wife-and-children route that runs in parallel, see maintenance under Section 125. For the full picture of how the firm approaches these matters, visit our family and divorce law practice page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband get maintenance from his wife in India?
Yes. Under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which are gender-neutral, a husband can apply for interim and permanent maintenance from his wife if he has no independent income sufficient for his support and she has the means to pay.
Can a husband claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS?
No. That provision allows a wife, children and parents to claim, but not a husband. A husband's spousal maintenance claim has to be brought under the Hindu Marriage Act for a Hindu marriage, rather than under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
What is the difference between Section 24 and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Section 24 provides interim maintenance and litigation expenses while a case is pending. Section 25 provides permanent alimony, ordered at the time of the decree or afterwards. Both are available to either spouse.
Does a husband have to prove he cannot earn?
In substance, yes. The husband must disclose his income, assets and earning capacity and show a genuine inability to maintain himself. Courts assess earning capacity, so voluntary unemployment by an able-bodied husband will usually defeat the claim.
Can a working husband still claim maintenance?
It is far harder. Where the husband has his own sufficient income, the basis for the claim, an inability to support himself, is largely absent. A large income gap alone, without genuine need, is unlikely to succeed.
Does the type of marriage matter?
Yes. The gender-neutral Sections 24 and 25 apply to marriages governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Couples married under other laws are governed by the maintenance provisions of those statutes, which may be worded differently.
Can maintenance ordered for a husband be changed later?
Yes. Maintenance is not frozen. If the financial circumstances of either spouse change, either party can apply to vary, increase, reduce or cancel the order.
Is there any bar on an able-bodied husband claiming?
There is no absolute statutory bar, but as a practical matter an able-bodied husband who can work and chooses not to is unlikely to obtain maintenance, because the section is designed for a spouse who cannot support himself.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Maintenance outcomes turn on the specific facts, the governing personal law and the evidence placed before the court. Please consult a qualified advocate about your own situation.
