[Hindu Marriage Act] Fact Of First Marriage Irrelevant To Decide S.24 Application For Maintenance Pendente Lite In Second Marriage: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that the fact whether the second marriage was void due to subsisting first marriage of a spouse is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held“What is important is for the Court to ascertain whether the...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the fact whether the second marriage was void due to subsisting first marriage of a spouse is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held
“What is important is for the Court to ascertain whether the party seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses, requires it, as to be paid by the other party in a matrimonial dispute pending adjudication.”
Husband-respondent had filed a petition for declaration of the marriage as void on grounds that the appellant-wife had a living spouse at the time of marriage. Appellant-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite. Casting a doubt on the wife due to her concealment of previous marriage, the Family Court rejected her application.
Appellant approached the High Court on grounds that the parties were known to each other for a very long time and the husband cannot claim not knowing about the wife from before. It was argued that the husband works in police and must pay maintenance to the petitioner.
The Court held that for the purpose for adjudication of the appeal it was not necessary to see whether the first marriage of the wife was subsisting at the time of second marriage. It was only necessary to see whether the party seeking such amount required it.
Section 24 of the Act provides where, in proceedings under the Act, it appears that the wife or the husband does not have an independent income sufficient for them, then upon application, may provide expense for the proceedings from the other spouse who is earning.
The Court held that there was no observation by the family against the marriage between the parties. Merely based on the fact of concealment of her first marriage and alleged income from work as employee in the Income Tax Department, the application was rejected.
“It may well be that appellant had concealed and misled respondent about herself. It may also well be that respondent may find success in the matrimonial proceeding, to get a decree declaring the marriage void. However, there was no material on record before the Family Court to show that appellant had any means to support herself,” held the Court.
Further, the Court observed that the respondent -husband had only made averment regarding the wife's employment but failed to bring any evidence on record. Accordingly, the Court directed payment of Rs. 15000 to the appellant-wife as maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act.
Case Title: Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya v. Jitendra Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 530 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210