Section 24 of the HMA, 1955, which provides for interim maintenance, is not intended to support individuals who are capable of earning but choose not to work.

In the case of Gurpreet Dhariwal (Appellant) vs. Amit Jain (Respondent)

Gurpreet sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after their marriage faced difficulties. The marriage, which took place in November 2015, encountered significant issues, including allegations of harassment and dowry demands. Gurpreet claimed that due to pressure from Amit and his family, she was forced to leave her job. She then requested interim maintenance of ₹75,000 per month and ₹2 lakh for litigation expenses.

Facts of the Case:

1. Marriage Troubles: Gurpreet alleged harassment and dowry demands from Amit, leading to marital discord.

2. Employment Status: Gurpreet, who is well-qualified, argued that she had been unable to secure a suitable job due to pressure from her husband and his family.

3. Maintenance Claim: Gurpreet sought financial support (maintenance) during the litigation period, citing her lack of current employment.

4. Family Court's Decision: The Family Court rejected her plea for maintenance, reasoning that she was capable of supporting herself, given her educational background and work experience.

Legal Points Raised:

1. Interim Maintenance under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This provision is intended to support a spouse who is financially incapable of maintaining themselves during the pendency of the case. Gurpreet invoked this section to claim maintenance from Amit.

2. High Court's Consideration: The Delhi High Court examined whether Gurpreet, as a qualified individual capable of earning, was entitled to such maintenance. The court emphasized that Section 24 is meant to assist spouses genuinely unable to support themselves and not those who voluntarily avoid employment for the sake of securing maintenance. The court also noted that Gurpreet had prior work experience and the capacity to earn, rejecting her plea on this basis.

Key Legal Findings:

- The court reiterated that Section 24 is not designed to create an "army of idle people" who remain dependent on financial support from their spouses despite being able to work .

- The High Court upheld the Family Court’s ruling, determining that Gurpreet's qualifications and prior employment indicated her capability to be self-sufficient, and thus, she was not entitled to interim maintenance.

This case highlights the importance of financial independence and the legal approach to claims for interim maintenance when the spouse has the ability to earn.