One of the first questions every separating spouse asks is simple: how much maintenance will be paid, and how is the figure arrived at? The honest answer is that India has no fixed formula and no statutory percentage. Instead, the law gives courts a structured discretion, anchored by the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (decided 4 November 2020). This guide explains that framework in plain language. For advice on your own facts, speak to our divorce and maintenance lawyers.

The problem Rajnesh v. Neha set out to fix

Before 2020, maintenance was governed by several overlapping laws, each applied differently by different courts. Litigants filed parallel claims, parties concealed their true income, awards varied wildly for similar facts, and there was confusion over when maintenance started running. In Rajnesh v. Neha, a bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy used the Court’s powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution to lay down binding, pan-India guidelines that every Family Court, Magistrate and High Court must now follow.

The mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities

The cornerstone of the judgment is the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. The Court prescribed a uniform format that both spouses must file in every maintenance proceeding across India, including cases already pending. The affidavit requires full disclosure of:

Salary, business income, and all other income sources
Movable and immovable assets, investments, and bank balances
Outstanding loans, EMIs, and genuine liabilities
Standard of living during the marriage, and dependants

The logic is straightforward: a court cannot fairly fix maintenance if it does not know what each party actually earns and owns. If a party files a false or incomplete affidavit, the court may draw an adverse inference, strike out the defence, or proceed on the other side’s figures. This single requirement has done more to discipline maintenance litigation than any other reform in recent years.

The factors courts weigh — and why there is no fixed percentage

Once income is on record, the court applies a needs-versus-capacity test, balancing the reasonable needs of the claimant against the paying spouse’s ability to pay. Rajnesh v. Neha confirmed the factors first articulated in earlier cases (notably Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112) that courts must weigh, including:

The status of the parties and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage
The reasonable needs of the wife and the children
The income, assets, and liabilities of both parties
Whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified
Whether the applicant gave up employment or career for the family
The age and health of the parties
Maintenance of minor children — food, clothing, education, residence, and medical costs
Reasonable litigation expenses for a non-earning spouse

Because every marriage and income profile is different, the Supreme Court deliberately refused to impose a rigid mathematical formula. Maintenance must be “just and reasonable” on the facts — neither so low that the dependent spouse is destitute, nor so high that it is a penalty on the earning spouse.

What about the “25% of net salary” benchmark?

Many people have heard that a wife is entitled to “25% of the husband’s salary.” This comes from Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, (2017) 14 SCC 200, where the Supreme Court observed that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be a “just and proper” amount of maintenance in that case. On those facts (a net salary of about Rs. 95,000 per month), the Court fixed maintenance at Rs. 20,000.

It is vital to understand that 25% is a judicial guide, not a binding rule or statutory cap. Courts routinely award more or less depending on the number of dependants, the wife’s own income, the husband’s liabilities (including obligations from a second marriage, as in Kalyan Dey itself, where the figure was reduced), and the marital standard of living. Treat 25% as a useful starting reference point, never as a guaranteed entitlement or a ceiling.

Interim vs. permanent maintenance

Maintenance comes in two stages:

Interim (pendente lite) maintenance keeps the dependent spouse and children afloat while the case is being decided. It is granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (formerly Section 125(2) of the CrPC), and on an interim basis under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Permanent alimony / final maintenance is decided when the main matter concludes — under Section 25 of the HMA (which allows a lump sum or periodic payment), or as the final order under BNSS Section 144 or the DV Act.

Interim relief is meant to be decided quickly so that no spouse is starved into submission during years of litigation.

From what date is maintenance payable?

Rajnesh v. Neha settled a long-running dispute: maintenance is to be awarded from the date the application is filed, not from the date of the final order. This prevents a paying spouse from benefiting by dragging out the proceedings. Where there are arrears for the gap between filing and order, courts may allow them to be paid in instalments.

Reconciling overlapping claims (HMA, DV Act, BNSS s. 144)

A claimant can legitimately approach more than one forum — for example, an HMA petition, a DV Act complaint, and a BNSS Section 144 application. The Supreme Court held that this is not barred, but courts must avoid duplicate or conflicting awards. The mechanism is:

In the disclosure affidavit, each party must reveal every other pending or decided maintenance proceeding between them.
When fixing maintenance, a court must take into account any amount already awarded in an earlier proceeding and adjust or set off accordingly, so the spouse is not paid twice for the same need.

In short, multiple remedies remain available, but the figures are reconciled into one fair overall obligation.

Enforcement — orders that bite

Maintenance orders are enforceable like a decree. The Court directed that recovery may be pursued through the Code of Civil Procedure — attachment and sale of property, and even civil detention (Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 and Order XXI), as well as under BNSS Section 144(3). A spouse who wilfully refuses to pay can have their defence struck out and face coercive recovery.

Key takeaways

There is no automatic percentage — maintenance is a reasoned, fact-specific assessment.
The disclosure affidavit is compulsory and is the foundation of every claim.
The 25% net-salary figure is a guide, not a guarantee.
Maintenance runs from the date of the application.
Overlapping claims are allowed but set off to prevent double recovery.

To understand how these principles apply to your income, assets and family situation, read our notes on the alimony factors during divorce and the right to maintenance and its legal provisions, then book a consultation.

This is general information, not legal advice. Consult our lawyers for advice on your situation.

How Maintenance Is Calculated in India (Rajnesh v. Neha)