Alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act — A Concise Survey of Law and Recent Authoritative Pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and High Court of Delhi

The present article surveys the contours of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which empowers matrimonial courts “exercising jurisdiction under this Act” to award permanent alimony and maintenance either at the time of passing any decree or at any point thereafter.

This provision is one of the most significant remedial measures within the HMA, as it functions as a statutory vehicle for providing durable financial relief to a spouse who may otherwise be left in economic vulnerability after the dissolution, annulment, or judicial separation of marriage. At its core, Section 25 seeks to prevent financial destitution and ensure that the weaker party in a matrimonial dispute does not suffer disproportionate hardship because of the breakdown or invalidity of marriage.

Unlike interim maintenance under Section 24, which is limited to the duration of ongoing litigation, Section 25 is designed for long-term sustenance. Importantly, the provision is not absolute; it is discretionary, fact-sensitive, and shaped by the unique circumstances of each case. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that relief under Section 25 cannot be claimed as a matter of right but must be justified on the basis of need, conduct, and capacity of both parties.

The Text, Context, and Spirit of Section 25

“Section 25 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.-

(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall *** pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant , the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.(2)If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.(3)If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just."

As may be seen, Section 25 is drafted in broad terms. It authorises the court to pass an order for permanent alimony and maintenance when it passes any decree under the Act or even subsequently. This wide language ensures flexibility and recognises that the financial needs of parties may not always crystallise at the precise moment of decree but may arise later.

The legislative intent behind this provision is not punitive but protective — it is meant to uphold principles of fairness and equity even where the marital tie itself is severed or nullified. The relief, therefore, extends beyond the strict validity of marriage and places emphasis on the realities of dependency, contribution, and fairness.

Recent Supreme Court Pronouncement/Clarification in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur

The Supreme Court in its recent three-Judge Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (MANU/SC/0193/2025) has modernised and clarified this area of law. The Court confirmed that:

• The remedy under Section 25 survives even after a decree of nullity under Section 11.
• It can co-exist with interim protection under Section 24.
• The final grant of alimony depends on judicial discretion, guided by facts, conduct, and equitable considerations.

This clarification addresses longstanding doubts in matrimonial litigation where one party attempted to resist maintenance on the ground that the marriage was void ab initio. The Supreme Court firmly stated that voidity does not extinguish the statutory power of courts to award permanent alimony, although the outcome will always depend on the factual matrix.

Key Tests for Grant of Relief

Based on the above pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the following key tests or factors merit consideration when courts decide whether to grant permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25, including in void marriage cases:

Practical Takeaways:

• Void marriage does not negate rights: After the Supreme Court’s ruling, a spouse in a marriage declared void under Section 11 can still press a claim under Section 25. The relief is not automatic but fact-driven.
• Complementary remedies: Parties litigating under Section 13(1)(ia) (cruelty) or other provisions may pursue both interim (Section 24) and eventual (Section 25) claims. Courts adjudicate each separately, applying statutory and equitable standards.
• Disclosure obligations: Both Supreme Court guidance and Delhi High Court practice directions underscore the importance of truthful affidavits of income, assets, and expenditure. Concealment or misstatement can attract adverse judicial findings.

Judicial Trends in the High Court of Delhi:

The Delhi High Court has actively shaped the interpretation and application of Sections 24 and 25. Recent cases illustrate that the High Court is not only scrutinising the quantum of maintenance but also the procedural rigour adopted by family courts.

For instance:

• In Subhash v. Mamta [MAT.APP.(FC) 195/2025, decided on 26.5.2025], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court examined the enhancement of maintenance and directed strict adherence to income affidavits while balancing the needs of dependents.
• In Naveen Kumar v. Kavita [CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 172/2024, decided on 1.7.2025], the High Court of Delhi highlighted procedural compliance and directed family courts to carefully determine the correct income base for alimony, rejecting arbitrary assumptions.

The above-mentioned rulings reaffirm that family courts must not adopt a superficial approach but rather engage in detailed scrutiny of income, standards of living, and other equitable considerations as discussed above. The supervisory role of the High Court ensures consistency and fairness across cases.

Relationship Between Section 24 and Section 25

It is important to distinguish the scope of Section 24 from Section 25:

• Section 24 provides for interim maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. It aims at preventing hardship while litigation is ongoing.
• Section 25, on the other hand, looks at permanent, long-term relief and may be invoked after the decree is passed, including in cases where the marriage itself is annulled.

The common thread between both provisions is judicial discretion, exercised on the basis of conduct, means, and equity. The courts have stressed that neither provision creates an automatic entitlement.

Emerging Standards

From the reasoning in the judgments discussed above, the following principles can be distilled:

1. A decree declaring marriage void under Section 11 does not automatically bar claims under Section 25.
2. Relief under Section 25 depends on:
   • Factual circumstances (duration of cohabitation, dependency, lifestyle).
   • Conduct of the parties (concealment, cruelty, bad faith).
3. Relief under Section 25 is always discretionary, not a matter of absolute right.
4. Section 24 relief is maintainable during proceedings even if the marriage is prima facie void, subject to statutory conditions.
5. Both Section 24 and Section 25 operate subject to considerations of fairness, transparency, and judicial balance.

Conclusion

The trajectory of Indian matrimonial jurisprudence demonstrates that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act remains a flexible and equitable remedy, tailored to prevent financial destitution and to balance competing interests in matrimonial litigation. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur provides much-needed clarity on the survivability of alimony claims even in void marriages, while the Delhi High Court continues to refine procedural and substantive standards for determining maintenance.

For litigants, the message is quite clear: financial transparency, responsible conduct, and equitable claims will carry weight. For courts, the challenge remains to apply Section 25 with sensitivity to individual circumstances while ensuring consistency across the justice system.

In sum, Section 25, read alongside Section 24, represents the legislature’s intent to extend protection and fairness beyond the rigid boundaries of marital validity, ensuring that justice in matrimonial law remains humane, adaptive, and equitable.