Maintenance, alimony and dowry prohibition

1. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses: section 24 HMA

In any proceeding under the Act, where it appears to the court that the wife or the husband has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the court may, on the application of that spouse, order the other to pay the expenses of the proceeding and, monthly during the proceeding, such sum as seems reasonable having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The application should, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent (added in 2001).

• The remedy is available to either spouse, husband included.
• It is available in any proceeding under the Act: restitution, judicial separation, nullity or divorce, whoever is the petitioner.
• Its purpose is to enable the dependent spouse to maintain herself or himself and to fight the case on equal terms.

2. Permanent alimony and maintenance: section 25 HMA

Any court exercising jurisdiction under the Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent, on application, order the respondent to pay the applicant for her or his maintenance and support a gross sum or a monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the applicant's life, having regard to the respondent's income and other property, the applicant's income and property, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances. The payment may be secured by a charge on the respondent's immovable property.

• Section 25(2): the court may vary, modify or rescind the order on a change in the circumstances of either party.
• Section 25(3): the court shall rescind the order if the party in whose favour it was made has remarried, or, if a wife, has not remained chaste, or, if a husband, has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock.
• A decree of any kind is enough, including one dismissing a petition, according to the better view, since the words are “any decree”.

Parallel remedies: section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the wife's right to maintenance while the marriage subsists, and to separate residence on grounds such as desertion, cruelty, another wife living, or a concubine kept in the house); section 20 of that Act (children and aged or infirm parents); section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old section 125 CrPC), available to wives of every religion; and section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. Rajnesh v. Neha: the guidelines

Because a wife can claim maintenance under several Acts at once, and proceedings dragged on for years, the Supreme Court laid down uniform guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 INSC 631, (2021) 2 SCC 324:

• Overlapping jurisdiction. A claimant who has already been granted maintenance in one proceeding must disclose it in any later proceeding. The court in the later proceeding must take the earlier award into account and adjust or set it off. Parallel orders are not barred, but double recovery is.
• Affidavit of disclosure. Both parties must file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, in the format annexed to the judgment, in all maintenance proceedings, including pending ones, before interim maintenance is decided.
• Criteria for quantum. The status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife and children, the applicant's qualifications and employment, any independent income or assets, the standard of living in the matrimonial home, the respondent's actual income and reasonable expenses and liabilities, and inflation. A wife who is qualified but not working is not for that reason alone disentitled.
• Date of award. Maintenance is to be awarded from the date of the application in all proceedings.
• Enforcement. An order can be enforced under section 28A HMA, as a money decree under the Code of Civil Procedure (including attachment and civil imprisonment), and under the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions now in the BNSS, with striking off the defence as a last resort.

4. Customary practices and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

The old law recognised stridhana, the woman's own property, including gifts made to her by her parents and relatives at the marriage. Gifts to the bride as a voluntary expression of affection turned over time into demands by the bridegroom's family as a price for the marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, strengthened in 1984 and 1986, is the response.

• Section 2. “Dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by the parents of either party or any other person to either party or any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage. Dower or mahr under Muslim personal law is excluded.
• Section 3. Giving, taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry: imprisonment of not less than five years and fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is more. Presents given at the time of the marriage to the bride or bridegroom without demand, entered in a list kept under the rules, are not covered.
• Section 4. Demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents, relatives or guardian: not less than six months, extendable to two years, and fine up to ten thousand rupees. Section 4A bans advertisements offering a share in property in consideration of marriage.
• Section 6. Dowry received by any person other than the woman is held in trust for her and must be transferred to her within three months.
• Sections 8 and 8A. Offences are non-bailable and non-compoundable; the burden of proving that he did not commit the offence is on the accused.
• Section 8B. Dowry Prohibition Officers appointed by the State.

5. Dowry death and cruelty under the BNS

Dowry death: section 80 BNS (old section 304B IPC). Where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the death is called a dowry death and the husband or relative is deemed to have caused her death. Punishment is imprisonment of not less than seven years, extendable to life. “Dowry” has the meaning in section 2 of the 1961 Act. Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (old section 113B of the Evidence Act) requires the court to presume that the accused caused the dowry death once these facts are shown.

In Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 INSC 301, (2021) 6 SCC 1, the Court held that “soon before” does not mean “immediately before”: the prosecution must show a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the death. It also asked trial courts to frame a charge of murder in the alternative where the facts justify it and to examine the accused properly on the incriminating material.

Cruelty: sections 85 and 86 BNS (old section 498A IPC). A husband or relative of the husband who subjects a woman to cruelty is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine. Cruelty means (a) wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, mental or physical; or (b) harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or on account of failure to meet such a demand.

The provision was upheld in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2005 INSC 299, (2005) 6 SCC 281, where the Court noted the risk of misuse but held that misuse is no ground to strike down a valid law. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 INSC 463, (2014) 8 SCC 273, it directed that the police must not arrest automatically in such cases but must satisfy themselves of the need for arrest under the statutory checklist (now section 35 BNSS).

6. Problem

W married H in 2021. From 2023 H's mother demanded a car, saying W's father had promised one. W told her parents of beatings over the demand two weeks before she was found dead of burns in the kitchen in 2025. Advise the prosecution.

Issue. Whether the ingredients of dowry death are made out.

Law. Section 80 BNS; section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; section 118 BSA; Satbir Singh.

Application. The death was by burns, within four years of the marriage. The demand for a car in connection with the marriage is a demand for dowry under section 2, which covers demands made after the marriage. The beatings two weeks before death, reported to the parents, give a proximate and live link. The presumption under section 118 BSA then arises against H and his mother, who must rebut it.

Conclusion. H and his mother can be charged under section 80 BNS, with section 85 BNS and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and in the alternative under section 103 BNS (murder) if the evidence suggests it.

How this is examined

Expect a 10-mark question on “maintenance and alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act” (sections 24 and 25 with Rajnesh) and a short note on “dowry death” or the “Dowry Prohibition Act”. Write the new BNS section first and the IPC section in brackets, since an answer that uses only the repealed IPC numbers looks dated.