Allahabad High Court | Husband Liable to Pay Maintenance Despite Stay of Divorce Case | Proceedings Under Hindu Marriage Act Continue Until Final Disposal
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam has dismissed a petition challenging the recovery of maintenance ordered under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that the liability to pay maintenance continues unless set aside, varied, or modified by the Supreme Court. It further directed that the petitioner cannot be absolved of liability merely because the matrimonial proceedings were stayed in a transfer petition. The Court upheld the recovery order issued by the Family Court, holding that no illegality had been committed in directing recovery of the maintenance amount.
The dispute originated when a husband filed a petition on 20 July 2018 seeking divorce from his wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was registered as Case No. 286 of 2018 before the Family Court, Pilibhit. The wife entered appearance and filed her written statement denying the allegations. During the pendency of the proceedings, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act on 26 March 2019 seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The husband filed objections to this application on 1 October 2019.
On 30 October 2020, the Family Court dismissed the wife’s application under Section 24. Aggrieved, she filed First Appeal No. 722 of 2021 before the High Court of Allahabad. On 18 November 2021, the High Court allowed her appeal, setting aside the Family Court’s order, and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month and Rs. 10,000 per month for the minor daughter with effect from the date of the application. The Court further directed that arrears of maintenance be paid within two months, and that a lump sum of Rs. 30,000 be paid towards litigation costs within one month.
This order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which on 29 November 2022 modified the award, directing payment of Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000 per month to the minor daughter. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order, the wife filed Execution Case No. 9 of 2022 before the Family Court, Pilibhit, to enforce compliance. She filed an application stating that as of 26 August 2024, Rs. 2,50,000 remained unpaid. On 11 September 2024, a recovery warrant was issued against the husband.
The husband challenged the recovery proceedings by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to set aside the Family Court’s order dated 6 May 2025 issuing recovery.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance pendente lite can only be granted during the pendency of proceedings. It was submitted that since the wife had filed a transfer petition, the High Court on 18 September 2023 had stayed proceedings in the divorce case. Therefore, the counsel contended, the respondent was not entitled to maintenance during the period when proceedings stood stayed. It was further argued that the wife, having herself obtained stay of the proceedings, could not simultaneously claim maintenance for the same period. The petitioner submitted that the Family Court erred in directing recovery without considering these facts.
The Family Court, however, proceeded with the recovery order, holding that the liability of the husband continued as per the Supreme Court’s order.
The Court examined Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides: “Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”
Justice Nigam recorded: “From the bare reading of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is apparent that if the party to the matrimonial proceedings does not possess independent income sufficient for his or her support during litigation and the expenses of the proceedings, then the Court can on his or her application, order the respondent to pay the applicant for the expenses of the proceedings and for per month allowance ‘during the proceedings’.”
The Court noted that the object of this provision is to ensure that financially weaker spouses are not handicapped in defending or prosecuting matrimonial proceedings. It further observed: “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.”
The Court elaborated on judicial precedents including Amrit Lal Nehru v. Usha Nehru (AIR 1982 J&K 98), Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Kumar Kejriwal (1993 (1) CCC 69), and Surendra Kumar Asthana v. Kamlesh Asthana (AIR 1974 All 110). Quoting from the J&K High Court’s Full Bench judgment, the Court observed: “It is, therefore, obvious that proceeding in a suit does not commence on the first hearing, rather the first hearing is one of the various stages in that proceeding, which starts as soon as the plaint is filed in the Court… The object behind the enactment is obviously twofold; firstly, to prevent vagrancy resulting from strained relations between the husband and wife; and secondly, to ensure that the indigent litigating spouse is not handicapped in defending or prosecuting the case due to want of money.”
Addressing the petitioner’s contention that stay of proceedings absolved him of liability, the Court recorded: “Mere stay of proceedings by this Court will not amount to termination of the proceedings… Therefore, 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 Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1 to draw the distinction between quashing and stay of proceedings, stating that a stay does not wipe out the order or terminate proceedings.
It also held that proceedings for transfer of a matrimonial case amount to proceedings under the Act, and therefore maintenance under Section 24 remains payable during such pendency.
Justice Nigam concluded: “In my view, 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 proceedings of matrimonial case has been stayed.”
The Court upheld the recovery order of the Family Court. Justice Nigam stated: “No illegality has been committed by the court below in directing for recovery of the said amount. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Javed Habib, Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha
Case Title: Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:133601
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 8704 of 2025
Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
