1. Legal Basis for Travel Expense Claims

(A) Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Courts may order either spouse to pay:

• maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance)
• expenses of proceedings (including travel costs)

The key idea is:

A financially weaker spouse should not be prevented from participating in litigation due to lack of money.

📌 Travel expenses may include:

• train/flight fare
• accommodation during hearings
• local conveyance
• attorney coordination travel costs (in some cases)

(B) Section 125 CrPC / BNSS Maintenance Proceedings

While primarily for maintenance, courts sometimes include:

• litigation support
• incidental travel costs where necessary

(C) Inherent Powers of Supreme Court / High Courts

Under Articles 136, 226, and 142 of the Constitution:

• courts may direct one spouse to bear travel expenses for fairness
• especially in transfer petitions

2. Key Principles Applied by Courts

Courts usually consider:

• financial capacity of both spouses
• distance between residences and court
• whether travel is necessary for justice
• whether denial would violate fair hearing rights
• whether the claim is genuine or exaggerated
• whether the spouse already receives maintenance

3. Major Case Laws on Marriage Travel Expense Disputes

1. Debdas Mali v. Madhumita Mali (Supreme Court, 2019)

The Supreme Court directed the husband to pay ₹25,000 for wife’s travel and lodging expenses during settlement proceedings in a transfer petition.

📌 Principle:

• Court can impose travel costs on husband to facilitate settlement and access to court.

2. Ruchika Swain v. Sandeep Kumar Mallick (Supreme Court, 2021)

The Court refused to transfer a divorce case but ordered the husband to bear wife’s travel expenses for attending hearings in another state.

📌 Principle:

• Even when transfer is denied, court can compensate travel burden.
• Ensures access to justice under Article 21.

3. Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva (Bombay High Court, 1995)

Held that:

• Section 24 HMA includes litigation expenses
• Financial incapacity of spouse justifies awarding costs

📌 Principle:

• Travel costs fall within “necessary expenses of proceedings.”

4. Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (Supreme Court, 2006)

Court emphasized:

• wife cannot be forced to litigate in distant courts without financial support

📌 Principle:

• Husband may be directed to pay travel/lodging expenses where distance causes hardship.

5. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (Supreme Court, 2023)

While dealing with irretrievable breakdown divorce:

• Court used Article 142 powers for complete justice
• included financial balancing between spouses

📌 Principle:

• Supreme Court can structure financial arrangements including incidental litigation costs.

6. Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (Supreme Court, 2001)

Held that:

• convenience of wife is a relevant factor in matrimonial proceedings transfer
• court must prevent harassment through forced travel

📌 Principle:

• travel burden should not be used as a tool of pressure in litigation.

7. Rajnesh v. Neha (Supreme Court, 2020)

Although focused on maintenance, it laid down guidelines requiring:

• full disclosure of income
• uniformity in maintenance awards

📌 Principle:

• litigation costs (including travel) must be assessed transparently based on financial affidavits.

4. Common Types of Travel Expense Disputes

(A) Transfer Petition Travel Costs

• spouse seeks transfer due to distance
• court denies transfer but orders other spouse to pay travel costs

(B) Cross-Examination Travel Costs

• one party resides abroad or far away
• court may order sponsoring travel for evidence recording

(C) Settlement Conference Travel Costs

• courts encourage mediation/settlement
• travel expenses often shifted to financially stronger spouse

(D) Maintenance Litigation Travel Claims

• wife/husband seeks reimbursement for attending hearings repeatedly

(E) False or Excessive Claims

Courts reject claims where:

• expenses are inflated without proof
• spouse has independent income
• travel was voluntary or unnecessary

5. Judicial Approach (How Courts Decide)

Courts balance:

✔ Fairness

No spouse should be denied participation due to poverty.

✔ Reasonableness

Only necessary and actual travel costs are reimbursed.

✔ Evidence Requirement

Bills, tickets, proof of travel are required.

✔ Conduct of Parties

Misuse or exaggeration can lead to rejection.

6. Key Legal Takeaways

• Travel expenses in marriage disputes are treated as part of litigation expenses
• Section 24 HMA is the primary legal basis
• Courts use discretionary, equity-based approach
• Higher courts (Supreme Court/High Courts) frequently allocate travel costs in:
  • transfer petitions
  • inter-state matrimonial disputes
• Proof and necessity are crucial for claiming reimbursement