The Delhi High Court has observed that a spouse's retirement corpus cannot be treated as recurring monthly income while deciding a claim for interim maintenance.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar clarified that courts must distinguish between accumulated retirement savings and the interest or other returns generated from such investments.

“The retirement corpus is accumulated capital. It cannot, merely because it is substantial, be treated as if it were a monthly income. A retired person cannot be expected to consume his or her retirement savings merely for the reason that such savings exist. At the same time, where the retirement savings are invested and generate interest or other returns, such recurring returns are income and have to be considered,” the Court said. 

It made the observations while upholding the dismissal of a retired government teacher's application seeking interim maintenance from her husband.

The Bench held that the woman had sufficient independent income and financial resources to meet her reasonable needs during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the wife challenging a Family Court order refusing her maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Bench noted that the Family Court had placed considerable reliance on the wife's retirement benefits and investments while assessing her financial position.

It clarified that the entire retirement corpus could not be treated as recurring monthly income, although the corpus remained relevant to the overall assessment of her financial resources.

The Court further observed that the determination of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not a mathematical exercise involving a mere comparison of the spouses' incomes.

“Section 24 is intended to secure reasonable support and the necessary expenses of litigation; it does not contemplate reimbursement of every item of expenditure disclosed by the claimant irrespective of its nature or necessity,” the Bench said.

It added that the fact that a claimant's disclosed expenditure exceeds her recurring income would not, by itself, establish entitlement to maintenance.

“The expenditure claimed must first be assessed for reasonableness Section 24 is intended to secure reasonable support and the necessary expenses of litigation; it does not contemplate reimbursement of every item of expenditure disclosed by the claimant irrespective of its nature or necessity,” the Court said.

At the same time, the Bench cautioned that the mere existence of savings or investments cannot, by itself, disentitle a spouse from claiming maintenance.

It said that Courts must examine the nature of the assets, the income actually generated from them and the claimant's reasonable needs.

The parties married in October 1983 and had two adult children. The husband, a retired Army officer, instituted proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

During the matrimonial proceedings, the wife, a retired Central Government teacher, sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court dismissed her application, finding that both parties were retired government employees receiving pensions and that the wife's income and financial resources were sufficient to sustain her.

The wife had disclosed a monthly pension of approximately Rs. 35,329 and interest income of Rs. 34,000, taking her recurring monthly income to approximately Rs. 69,000.

On the other hand, the husband had disclosed a monthly pension of approximately Rs. 1.09 lakh, investments of around Rs. 73 lakh in shares, mutual funds and bonds, and approximately Rs. 16.50 lakh in PPF.

Dismissing her plea, the Bench held that the husband's higher pension, considered in isolation, did not automatically entitle the wife to maintenance. It also took note of his obligation to maintain his 87-year-old dependent mother.

The Court held that the wife had regular pension income, recurring investment income and accumulated financial resources, and that the material on record did not establish that she lacked sufficient means for her reasonable support during the matrimonial proceedings.

“We accordingly hold that although the reasoning adopted by the learned Family Court, particularly insofar as it treated the parties' comparative income and retiral corpus as determinative considerations, cannot be endorsed in its entirety, the ultimate conclusion dismissing the appellant's application under Section 24 of the HMA does not call for interference. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is dismissed,” the Court concluded.