A husband's obligation to provide maintenance pendente lite to his wife, as stipulated under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, continues unabated, even if the divorce proceedings are stayed, emphasized Justice Manish Kumar Nigam of the Allahabad High Court in his ruling.

The bench further clarified that this duty remains intact regardless of whether the case is under consideration at the revisional or appellate stages. Importantly, the court highlighted 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."

This ruling arose from a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Ankit Suman, who challenged an order from a Family Court related to an execution case initiated by his wife.

Facts:

The background of the case shows that in 2018, the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of this case, the wife sought maintenance pendente lite under Section 24. Initially, the Family Court rejected her application on October 30, 2020.

Upon appeal, however, the High Court granted the maintenance in November 2021, ordering the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife, Rs. 10,000 to their minor daughter, along with arrears and Rs. 30,000 for litigation expenses.

When the husband contested this order, the Supreme Court modified it in November 2022, directing a payment of Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000 to the daughter. When these payments were not made, the wife initiated an Execution Case, leading to a recovery warrant issued against the husband in September 2024.

Following this, the Additional Family Court of Pilibhit passed an order in favor of the wife, enforcing recovery.

The husband argued before the High Court that, under Section 24 of the 1955 Act, maintenance should only be awarded while the proceedings are actively ongoing. He also submitted that the High Court’s stay on the divorce proceedings, granted in a transfer petition filed by the wife in September 2023, meant the wife was not entitled to maintenance for the duration of the stay.

He further contended that since the divorce proceedings were stayed, they could not be considered as pending under Section 24, and the wife should not receive maintenance during this period. He claimed that the lower court overlooked these facts when it issued the recovery warrant.

In response, the High Court examined Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, explaining that its purpose is to ensure that the financially weaker spouse is not disadvantaged during matrimonial litigation.

The Court elaborated that the phrase "during the proceedings" encompasses the entire process from the filing of the petition until its conclusion and extends to appellate, revisional, or restoration stages. Referring to precedents from various High Courts, including Jammu & Kashmir, Bombay, and Allahabad, it emphasized that a Section 24 plea can be maintained at any stage of matrimonial litigation, including revision, appeal, or restoration proceedings.

The Court also referenced a ruling by the Delhi High Court in Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. Jyoti Rani Prasad, which concluded that applications under Section 24 may be entertained even during the pendency of proceedings under Section 25.

To counter the husband's argument that the stay on proceedings absolved him of the obligation to pay maintenance, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992), which clarifies that a stay does not imply termination of the proceedings.

The Court stated, "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."

In applying these principles to the present case, the Court observed that the maintenance order under Section 24 has neither been revoked nor set aside. Therefore, the husband's obligation to pay maintenance remains. The Court further held:"... mere staying the proceedings of the matrimonial case by this Court will not amount to the matrimonial proceedings coming to an end, absolving the petitioner of his liability to pay the maintenance amount from the date of stay of proceedings."

Additionally, the Court noted that even transfer proceedings constitute ongoing matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, and thus cannot impede the wife's entitlement to maintenance.

Ultimately, the Court found the husband's arguments to be flawed and dismissed his plea.

Appearance:

Advocates Javed Habib and Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha represented the husband

Case Details : Ankit Suman vs. State of U.P. and Another