Stay Of Divorce Proceedings Doesn't End Husband's Liability To Pay Maintenance Pendente Lite: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam clarified that the husband's liability to pay won't end even if the case proceedings are pending at the revisional or appellate stages. It added that even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending, the liability continues to exist.

The single judge held so while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Ankit Suman challenging a Family Court's order in an execution case filed by the wife.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioner (husband) filed a divorce petition in 2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During its pendency, the wife filed an application under Section 24 seeking maintenance pendente lite.

The Family Court initially rejected her plea on October 30, 2020. However, on the wife's appeal, the High Court allowed the application in November 2021 and directed the husband to pay Rs. 10K per month to his wife and Rs 10K per month to the minor daughter, along with arrears and Rs 30K towards litigation costs.

When the husband challenged that order, the Supreme Court modified it in November 2022 and directed payment of Rs 10K per month to the wife and Rs 5K per month to the daughter.

As the amount remained unpaid, the wife initiated an Execution Case. In September 2024, a recovery warrant was issued against the husband, and subsequently, the impugned order was passed by the Additional Family Court, Pilibhit, issuing a recovery against the petitioner.

Challenging the impugned order, the Husband-petitioner argued before the HC that, as per Section 24 of the 1955 Act, maintenance can only be granted during the pendency of the proceedings.

It was further submitted that the HC had stayed further proceedings of the divorce petition in September 2023 in a transfer petition filed by the wife. Thus, it was contended that the moment the HC court stayed the proceedings of the divorce case, the wife was not entitled to maintenance for the period for which the proceedings remained stayed.

In other words, it was argued that since the divorce proceedings had been stayed, the proceedings for divorce cannot be considered as pending (in terms of S. 24 Hindu Marriage Act) and therefore, the wife is not entitled to maintenance amount during the period the proceedings of the matrimonial case are stayed.

Against this backdrop, it was further submitted that the court below ignored this fact while issuing the recovery warrant.

High Court's order

At the outset, the Court reproduced Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and explained that its object is to ensure that a financially weaker spouse is not handicapped in prosecuting or defending matrimonial proceedings.

The Court elaborated that the words 'during the proceedings' cover the entire span from the filing of the petition until its termination and may extend even to the appellate, revisional, or restoration stages.

The single judge referred to several decisions of different HCs, including the decision by the the Full Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Amrit Lal Nehru v. Usha Nehru 1982, Bombay HC's order in Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Kumar Kejriwal 1992, and Allahabad HC's ruling in the case of Surendra Kumar Asthana v. Kamlesh Asthana 1974 to note that Court Section 24 plea is maintainable at every stage of matrimonial litigation, even in revision, appeal or during proceedings for restoration.

Furthermore, the bench also referred to the Delhi HC's 1981 ruling in the case of Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. Jyoti Rani Prasad, wherein it was concluded that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 25, the application under Section 24 can be filed and entertained

On the argument that the HC's stay order absolved the husband from paying maintenance, the Court relied on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association 1992 3 SCC 1 to hold that a stay of proceedings does not mean its termination.

"Thus, from the case laws as referred above, it is evident that 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", the Court remarked.

Coming to the facts of the present case, it noted that the order of maintenance under Section 24 of the 1955 Act has neither been recalled nor been set aside and therefore, the liability to make payment in terms of the order continues.

"… 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", the bench held.

The Court further held that even transfer proceedings would amount to proceedings contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, and this wouldn't be an impediment to the wife's receiving maintenance.

Thus, the Court concluded that the husband's contentions were misconceived and hence, his plea was dismissed.

Advocates Javed Habib and Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha appeared for the husband.