Alimony Rules in India 2026: A Complete Guide to Maintenance Law

A Bengaluru IT professional's wife files for divorce and immediately applies for interim maintenance. He earns well; she gave up her job eight years ago. He assumes the court will ignore alimony since he never agreed to pay. She assumes the court will award a fixed fraction of his salary. Both assumptions are wrong. Indian maintenance law is more structured — and more discretionary — than either of them thinks.

Three legal routes govern alimony and maintenance in India. They overlap, but each has a distinct character: Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act covers interim maintenance during divorce proceedings; Section 25 HMA covers permanent alimony after the decree; and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC) is the religion-neutral maintenance remedy available to any spouse or dependent. None of them gives a formula. All of them give courts wide discretion.

Section 24 HMA: maintenance during the proceedings

Section 24 is the pendente lite provision. Either spouse — not just the wife — who lacks independent income sufficient for their support may apply for interim maintenance and litigation expenses from the other. The Bangalore Family Court is required to dispose of a Section 24 application within sixty days under the Supreme Court's Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) framework, though the timeline is aspirational in practice.

What matters at this stage is the income affidavit. Courts under the Rajnesh framework require a detailed affidavit of assets and liabilities from both parties — salary slips, bank statements, ITRs, and details of loans and dependents. What goes into that affidavit, prepared at day one, anchors expectations for the permanent order. The affidavit is commonly treated as a procedural formality. It is not.

Section 25 HMA: permanent alimony after the decree

Section 25 empowers the Family Court to order either spouse to pay the other a gross sum or monthly payments — at the time of the divorce decree, or on application at any time after. The section is gender-neutral. In practice most claims are by wives, but the right runs both ways.

A gross-sum order ends the financial relationship cleanly. Monthly alimony carries a modification clause — either party can apply to vary the amount on a material change in circumstances — which means the litigation can continue in a different form for years. Where the respondent has assets and the parties can negotiate, a lump-sum structure is generally preferable.

We cover the quantum factors and the 2026 Supreme Court escalation precedent in detail in two related posts — one on how Family Courts fix the Section 25 amount, and one on the biennial 5% escalation template from Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025 SC), where permanent alimony was enhanced to ₹50,000 per month with an automatic inflation-linked adjustment. The short version: courts examine income on both sides, the standard of living during the marriage, the duration of the marriage, whether a career was sacrificed, and the receiving spouse's realistic earning capacity. They do not apply a formula.

Section 144 BNSS: the religion-neutral maintenance route

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — formerly Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — is a secular statute that applies to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and others alike. It covers a wife unable to maintain herself, divorced wives who have not remarried, minor children, major children unable to support themselves due to incapacity, and parents unable to maintain themselves.

The Magistrate Court hears Section 144 BNSS proceedings. This is distinct from the Family Court at Mayo Hall, which handles HMA matters. A spouse may claim maintenance concurrently under Section 144 BNSS and Sections 24 or 25 HMA, but courts will not allow double recovery of the same amount — a later order is adjusted against an earlier one.

Muslim women have an additional layer under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, which confirmed that a Muslim divorced woman can claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS independently of the Muslim personal law framework.

How courts actually decide the amount

• Income and assets of both parties, verified through the Rajnesh disclosure affidavit, bank statements, and ITRs — self-employed respondents are assessed on capacity, not just declared income.
• Standard of living during the marriage. A household that maintained domestic help, private schooling, and annual international holidays is the reference point the court works from.
• Duration of the marriage. Longer marriages attract higher and more durable alimony; short marriages of under three years attract lower quantum, especially where children are not involved.
• Career or educational sacrifice. A spouse who left employment or paused a professional career to manage the household or raise children has this weighed in their favour.
• The earning capacity of the claimant. Courts do not award maintenance to compel comfortable non-work. A qualified professional who is capable of self-support receives a lower figure than one who genuinely cannot earn.
• Conduct during the marriage. Adultery, cruelty, and abandonment remain relevant to quantum, though courts today treat fault more as a factor than as a bar.
• Responsibilities to dependents — children, parents, or prior maintenance obligations — on the respondent's side.

The 25% benchmark — context and caution

Courts have in a line of maintenance cases observed that 25% of the paying spouse's net take-home income can serve as an informal starting point for monthly maintenance where the claimant has no income and the marriage lasted a reasonable duration. This is not a statutory rule. It is a judicial tendency, applied flexibly. Courts depart from it routinely — upward where needs are high and income allows, downward where the claimant has independent resources or the marriage was brief.

Clients who arrive expecting either a fixed 25% entitlement or a defence that disposes of any maintenance claim above that figure tend to be disappointed. The court reads the file. Preparation — the disclosure affidavit, the bank statements, the evidence of the marriage's standard of living — is what shapes the outcome, not a number circulated online.

One-time settlement vs monthly maintenance

In most contested matters, the practical question is not the legal route but the structure. Monthly maintenance carries enforcement risk — a salaried respondent can be attached, but a self-employed one is harder to track — and invites future variation applications every time a financial position changes. A one-time lump-sum settlement, structured around a property transfer or a defined capital payment, ends the financial relationship at the decree.

A property transfer in lieu of alimony must be properly documented, stamped, and registered to take effect. An undertaking in a settlement agreement that is never acted upon leaves the recipient holding an unenforceable promise and the payer a property they cannot clear. Execution should happen at the time of the settlement, not deferred to 'after the decree comes through'.

Enforcement — where most alimony orders fail

An order is only as good as its enforcement mechanism. For salaried respondents, salary attachment through the employer is the most reliable tool. Bank-account attachment works where the account is identifiable. Immovable-property attachment is available but slower.

Self-employed respondents are the harder problem. Where income is not on paper, courts have begun examining business receivables, ordering the respondent to appear and explain assets, and attaching known property. Contempt of court — available under the Family Court's inherent powers — is a last resort but one courts use for wilful default. The enforcement is rarely quick. Front-loading by securing a property transfer or a structured bank guarantee at the time of settlement is worth the negotiation effort.

Modification and termination

A monthly alimony order under Section 25 can be varied on a material change in circumstances — the respondent's income falling substantially, the recipient gaining well-paid employment, or either party's health shifting. Remarriage of the recipient terminates the order automatically. Cohabitation without remarriage does not end the right automatically but gives the court discretion to reduce or refuse continuation.

The 2025 Supreme Court escalation precedent in Rakhi Sadhukhan built a 5% biennial adjustment into the order itself, eliminating repeated variation applications for inflation alone. Bangalore Family Court is likely to apply this template in fresh permanent-alimony matters going forward. A post on that ruling specifically is linked below.

Maintenance and alimony questions turn heavily on facts — your spouse's income, your own earning history, the duration and standard of the marriage, and what is pending in related proceedings. Send a brief description of your situation over WhatsApp at +91 63637 45780 and we will explain which legal route applies and what documents and steps are involved.