Proceedings For Maintenance Pendente Lite Maintainable Even At Revisional/Appellate Stage Under Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses are maintainable even if the case under the Act is at revisional or appellate stage or if restoration application is pending in any such proceedings under the Act which have been dismissed in default.Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held“the proceedings...
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses are maintainable even if the case under the Act is at revisional or appellate stage or if restoration application is pending in any such proceedings under the Act which have been dismissed in default.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings as contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the liability to pay the amount will not come to an end merely because the proceedings are pending at the revisional stage, appellate stage or even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending.”
Husband initiated divorce proceedings wherein objections were filed by the wife. During the pendency of the petition, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was rejected. In appeal, the High Court allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- to the minor daughter, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded to the wife as cost of litigation. The Supreme Court reduced the amount awarded to the minor daughter to Rs. 5000/-.
Thereafter, the wife filed a execution case, seeking recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was not paid to her by the husband-petitioner. The Additional Family Court, Pilibhit passed an order issuing recovery against the petitioner. This order was challenged by the husband under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that the aim of Section 24 of the Act is to provide the financially weaker party an opportunity to present its case and not be left out because of lack of finances. It held that the provision aimed to provide immediate financial assistance to the party who has no/ insufficient source of income for pursuing proceedings under the Act.
“The rich party cannot be allowed by law to have an upper hand simply by the strength of his purse. Money cannot be determinant of the merit of a case. Not only the party against whom a petition is instituted in a court may claim maintenance pendente lite and the expense of litigation but also a party who has instituted the litigation can also claim the cost of litigation and maintenance pendente lite in case, he or she does not possess independent income sufficient for his or her support (maintenance) during litigation and the expenses of the proceedings.”
The Court held that the words “during the proceedings” appearing in Section 24 covered all proceedings under the Act atleast from the date of the date of application till the end of proceedings before any Court.
Inter alia, the Court relied on Surendra Kumar Asthana v. Kamlesh Asthana wherein the Allahabad High Court had held that “in any proceeding under this Act” appearing in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was wide enough to include any proceedings wherein orders passed under the Act were being challenged including civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C.
Following the aforesaid, the Court held that the order affixing liability under Section 24 of the Act was final. It further held that the merely because stay was granted in the matrimonial proceedings by the High Court, it did not amount to termination of proceedings under the Act.
“mere staying the proceedings of the matrimonial case by this Court will not amount that the matrimonial proceedings came to an end, absolving the petitioner of his liability to pay the maintenance amount from the date of stay of proceedings.”
Holding that the wife was entitled to maintenance during continuance of transfer proceedings for the matrimonial case, the Court dismissed the husband's petition.
Case Title: Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8704 of 2025]