Wife's Past Marital Status Irrelevant to Interim Maintenance Claim: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the veracity of a woman’s past marital status need not be examined while deciding her application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The observation came in a case where a woman challenged a family court’s decision denying her interim maintenance on the ground that she had concealed details of her earlier marriage. The family court had found that her previous marriage had ended only in April 2024, whereas she had remarried in February 2021, allegedly in violation of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act which bars bigamy.
However, a division bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held that such factual determinations regarding her previous husband were unnecessary for adjudicating the interim maintenance plea.
The high court emphasized that the sole consideration under Section 24 is whether the applicant lacks sufficient income to support herself and bear litigation costs.
“For purpose of adjudicating the appeal, it is not necessary for us to find on other facts regarding allegation of appellant that there was separation from her first husband… This is because section 24 provides for a spouse to have maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings,” the bench noted.
The husband, who worked in the Police, argued that the marriage was void due to concealment and relied on 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur to argue that conduct matters in deciding maintenance. His counsel also claimed that the woman had falsely stated she was employed in the Income Tax department.
The high court, however, found that there was no evidence on record to prove the woman was earning or had financial means. On the contrary, it noted that she had moved to live with the respondent in Kanpur after the marriage, and was now residing at her original address in Jhansi.
The high court observed that allegations of deceit, even if ultimately proven, do not override the financial necessity that Section 24 seeks to address.
Setting aside the family court's order, the bench directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 15,000 per month to the appellant from the date of her application, April 15, 2025. Arrears were also ordered to be cleared by June 14, 2025, and monthly payments will continue by the 7th of each subsequent month.
Court also urged the family court to expedite the main matrimonial case without delay, while cautioning the wife against seeking adjournments.
Case Title: Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya vs. Jitendra Gautam