Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a husband’s liability to pay maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act continues even when divorce proceedings have been stayed by the court.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam delivered the judgment, dismissing a petition challenging recovery proceedings for unpaid maintenance.
The court addressed Matters Under Article 227 No. 8704 of 2025, filed by Ankit Suman, challenging an order dated May 6, 2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, in an execution case for recovery of maintenance arrears.
The petitioner, a husband who had filed for divorce from his wife Neeraj Saini in 2018, was ordered by the Supreme Court in November 2022 to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to his wife and ₹5,000 per month to their minor daughter under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife filed execution proceedings claiming ₹2,50,000 in unpaid maintenance till August 2024, leading to a recovery warrant against the husband.
The husband’s counsel argued that since the wife had filed a transfer petition to move the divorce case from Pilibhit to Bareilly, which resulted in a stay of proceedings on September 18, 2023, his liability should cease during the period of stay.
The petitioner contended that maintenance under Section 24 can only be granted pendente lite (during pending proceedings), and since the divorce proceedings were stayed, no maintenance was due for that period.
However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the fundamental principle underlying Section 24. It observed:
“From a bare reading of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is apparent that if a party to matrimonial proceedings does not possess independent income sufficient for his or her support during litigation and the expenses of the proceedings, then the court may, on an application, order the respondent to pay the applicant expenses of the proceedings and a monthly allowance ‘during the proceedings’.”
The court made a crucial distinction between staying proceedings and terminating them, citing Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association. Justice Nigam stated:
“A distinction has to be made between quashing an order and staying its operation. Quashing of an order results in restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the order, whereas staying the operation of an order does not lead to such a result.”
The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 24 is to provide immediate financial relief to prevent destitution during matrimonial litigation.
It also referred to the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Kumar Kejriwal, which held that maintenance applications remain maintainable even during pendency of restoration applications.
Therefore, the court concluded that the husband’s liability remained intact since the Supreme Court’s maintenance order from November 2022 had “neither been recalled nor set aside”, and thus the liability continued unless modified by the Supreme Court.
The court also observed that even transfer proceedings constitute “proceedings under the Act.” Referring to Surendra Kumar Asthana v. Kamlesh Asthana, Justice Nigam noted that maintenance can be granted even during revision proceedings and when jurisdictional issues are pending.
In dismissing the petition, the court stated:
“The contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner are of no avail, and the petitioner will not be absolved from his liability to pay the maintenance amount merely because the matrimonial proceedings have been stayed.”
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
