Is a Retirement Fund Income for Interim Maintenance? Delhi High Court

In a judgment dated 8 October 2026 (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 990), the Delhi High Court held that a retired spouse’s savings are accumulated capital, not monthly income, when interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is decided. But the interest those savings earn is income, and the court must count it. The wife’s appeal was still dismissed, because her pension and investment returns were enough to support her while the divorce case runs.

What happened

The couple married in October 1983 and have two grown-up children. The husband, a retired Army officer, filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife, a retired Central Government teacher, asked the Family Court for interim maintenance (money paid while the case is pending) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She denied the cruelty allegations.

The Family Court refused. It noted that both spouses were over 60, both were retired and drawing pensions, the children were settled, and the wife had received retirement benefits of more than Rs 50 lakh. It concluded that her income was at least equal to the husband’s. The wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Her main argument was that the Family Court had treated her retirement savings as ongoing income, although she was spending them because her pension did not cover her costs.

What the High Court held

The Bench began with what Section 24 asks. The court looks at whether the spouse claiming has “no independent income sufficient” for support and for the necessary costs of the case, and then sets a reasonable sum “having regard to the income of both”. It relied on two Supreme Court decisions, Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain ((2017) 15 SCC 801) and Rajnesh v. Neha ((2021) 2 SCC 324), and said the exercise is “not a mathematical exercise”. The court does not simply subtract one spouse’s income from the other’s.

On the central question, the Bench drew a clear line:

“The retirement corpus is accumulated capital.”

A person cannot be expected to use up retirement savings only because they exist. But where the savings are invested, “such recurring returns are income and have to be considered”. The Bench said the Family Court’s reliance on the whole corpus “requires some clarification”: only the interest or other return actually earned counts as income. At the same time, the corpus is not irrelevant. It is part of the person’s overall financial position, and the court may look at it to decide whether the person can support themselves. What the court cannot do is treat it “as though it were a recurring salary”.

Three more points came out of the judgment:

• A long expense list does not decide the case. The wife’s affidavit showed monthly expenses of about Rs 1,16,150. The Bench said a figure in an affidavit is not conclusive. The court must first ask which expenses are necessary and reasonable, and it separated those from discretionary spending that cannot automatically be passed on to the other spouse.
• Higher income of the other spouse is not enough. The husband’s pension was higher (about Rs 1,09,000 a month against the wife’s recurring income of about Rs 69,000). The Bench said Section 24 does not mean the lower earner must always be paid.
• Suspicion is not income. The wife argued that the husband earned from a training business and made large donations. The Bench said some material must be on record before extra recurring income is attributed to a person, and donations alone do not prove an undisclosed income.

The Bench also made the point from the other side: having savings or investments does not, by itself, disentitle a spouse from claiming maintenance. The nature of the assets, the income they actually produce and the person’s reasonable needs must be looked at together.

Is this new law?

Not a new rule, but a useful clarification. The Supreme Court has long said that interim maintenance exists to stop a dependent spouse from being left without support, not to equalise incomes. This judgment applies that to a common situation in Delhi: two retired spouses, one or both with a pension and a lump sum saved. It also corrects the habit of counting the whole retirement fund as income.

What it means for you

This is a decision on its own facts and the result depends on the figures in each case. Here is a practical checklist.

If you are asking for interim maintenance

• Disclose your pension, interest and every other regular income fully and honestly in your affidavit. The court will compare it with your reasonable needs.
• List your expenses under heads such as rent, medical care, food and utilities, and be ready to show why each is necessary. Holidays and other discretionary items are likely to be questioned.
• Do not assume your savings will count against you in full. Only the income they earn is counted as income, though the court may still look at them as part of your resources.
• If you say the other spouse hides income, bring some material: bank statements, returns, business records. An allegation alone is not enough.

If you are asked to pay

• Show your real income, your own reasonable expenses and the people you support, such as an elderly parent. The Bench treated the husband’s duty to his 87-year-old mother as a relevant obligation.
• If the other spouse has regular pension and investment income, say so with documents.

Documents usually needed: latest income and expense affidavits (the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha requires full disclosure), pension slips, bank and investment statements, income tax returns for recent years, and proof of any dependants or medical expenses.

How I approach these cases

In an interim maintenance matter I start with the affidavits, because that is where the case is usually decided. I go through each figure against the documents, check whether every item of income is disclosed, and separate the expenses that are necessary from those that are not. The aim is to put an accurate picture before the court, whichever side is being represented.

If you are facing a divorce or maintenance case in Delhi, you can read more about how I handle family and matrimonial matters in Delhi.

Sources

• Judgment of the Delhi High Court, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022, 8 October 2026 (PDF)
• LiveLaw: Retirement corpus can’t be treated as monthly income while deciding maintenance
• Court Book: Retirement savings cannot be treated as monthly income
• Law Street: Retirement corpus is not monthly income, denies interim maintenance to retired teacher

This post explains a court decision in general terms and is not advice on your own case.