Section 24 HMA: Allahabad HC Rules Stay of Divorce Proceedings Doesn’t Halt Maintenance

The dispute traces back to July 2018, when Suman filed a divorce petition against his wife, Neeraj Saini, before the Pilibhit family court. In March 2019, the wife sought maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. Although her plea was initially rejected in October 2020, she successfully challenged the decision before the High Court.

On November 18, 2021, the Allahabad High Court granted her Rs. 10,000 per month and awarded an equal sum for their minor daughter, along with Rs. 30,000 towards litigation expenses. The order also directed arrears to be cleared within two months.

Suman approached the Supreme Court, which in November 2022 slightly modified the award, reducing the daughter’s maintenance to Rs. 5,000 while retaining the wife’s entitlement of Rs. 10,000. The apex court directed that payments would be effective from the date of application.

Despite these directions, the wife alleged default in payment and initiated an execution case before the Pilibhit family court. She claimed that as of August 2024, arrears amounting to Rs. 2.5 lakh had accumulated. The family court issued a recovery warrant in September 2024 and subsequently, on May 6, 2025, reaffirmed the recovery against Suman.

Challenging this order before the High Court, Suman argued that since divorce proceedings were stayed in September 2023 in response to his wife’s transfer petition, no maintenance could be claimed for that period. He contended that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act only contemplates maintenance “during proceedings,” and once proceedings were stayed, the liability should not continue.

The High Court, however, rejected this argument as “wholly misconceived.” Citing established precedents, including decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras (1992) and other High Courts, Justice Nigam held that maintenance under Section 24 remains enforceable as long as proceedings are pending in any form i.e. trial, appeal, revision, or even transfer.

Court drew a distinction between “stay” and “quashing” of proceedings, observing that while quashing nullifies a case, a stay merely halts its progress temporarily without erasing its existence. “The liability to pay the amount will not come to an end merely because the proceedings are pending at  therevisional 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 judge wrote.

The judgment further underscored the purpose of Section 24, which is to ensure that a financially weaker spouse is not left destitute during litigation. Justice Nigam noted that such provisions prevent “the rich party” from gaining an upper hand solely due to financial strength.

With this decision, the Court upheld the recovery proceedings initiated by the wife, leaving the husband liable for arrears unless modified by the Supreme Court.

Concluding that no illegality had been committed by the family court, the High Court dismissed the husband's petition.

Case Title: Ankit Suman vs State of UP and Another

Order Date: August 7, 2025

Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam