# Ankit Suman v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 377
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-07
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 8704 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankit-suman-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53686
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Whether in view of the provisions of Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, maintenance
can
only
be
granted
pendente
lite
the
proceedings.

If the proceedings of divorce were stayed by
this Court, the respondent was not entitled for
maintenance for the period for which the
proceedings remained stayed
Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Sections 13 & 24 - An order under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has
been
passed
finally
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court by judgment and order
dated 29.11.2022 which has neither been
recalled nor been set aside and therefore,
the liability to make payment in terms of
the order continues unless the same is set
aside, varied or modified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court - Mere stay of proceedings
by
this
Court
will
not
amount
to
termination of the proceedings - Wife
entitled
for
maintenance
during
the
continuance of transfer proceedings -
Petitioner not be absolved from liability to
pay the maintenance amount merely,
because the proceedings of matrimonial
case
has
been
stayed
-
Petition
dismissed.(Para 19, 20, 21 & 22) ( E-15)

Case Law Cited
Amrit Lal Nehru Vs. Usha Nehru AIR 1982 J&K
98; Vinod Kumar Kejriwal Vs. Usha Kumar
Kejriwal 1993 (1) CCC 69; Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana AIR 1974 All
110; Dharambir Singh Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur
1979 HLR 305; Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. Jyoti
Rani Prasad AIR 1981 Delhi 99; Shree
Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South
India
Trust
Association
CSI
CINOD
Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955

List of Keywords
Maintenance pendente lite; Doctrine of alimony;
Maintenance allowance; Pendente lite and
expenses; No independent income; Necessary
expenses
of
the
proceedings;
Financial
assistance to avoid starvation or destitution;
Wife entitled for maintenance during the
continuance of transfer proceedings; Petitioner
not
be
absolved
from
liability
to
pay
maintenance

Case Arising From
Order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Additional
Principal
Judge
Family
Court,
Pilibhit
in
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Execution Case No. 9 of 2022 (Smt. Neeraj Saini
Vs. Ankit Suman).

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Petitioner
:-
Javed
Habib,Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

## Text

8 All. Ankit Suman Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
377
disputed or specifically denied, considering
which the alleged offences are prima facie
made out.

37. The learned trial court as well as
the learned revisional court have passed the
impugned orders in accordance with law
after considering the grounds of the
petitioners and the material placed on
record by the prosecution. This Court does
not find any illegality or error in the
impugned orders, which may call for any
interference by this Court. This petition is
misconceived and lacks merit.

38. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8704 of 2025

Ankit Suman ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Javed Habib, Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether in view of the provisions of Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, maintenance
can
only
be
granted
pendente
lite
the
proceedings.

If the proceedings of divorce were stayed by
this Court, the respondent was not entitled for
maintenance for the period for which the
proceedings remained stayed
Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Sections 13 & 24 - An order under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has
been
passed
finally
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court by judgment and order
dated 29.11.2022 which has neither been
recalled nor been set aside and therefore,
the liability to make payment in terms of
the order continues unless the same is set
aside, varied or modified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court - Mere stay of proceedings
by
this
Court
will
not
amount
to
termination of the proceedings - Wife
entitled
for
maintenance
during
the
continuance of transfer proceedings -
Petitioner not be absolved from liability to
pay the maintenance amount merely,
because the proceedings of matrimonial
case
has
been
stayed
-
Petition
dismissed.(Para 19, 20, 21 & 22) ( E-15)

Case Law Cited
Amrit Lal Nehru Vs. Usha Nehru AIR 1982 J&K
98; Vinod Kumar Kejriwal Vs. Usha Kumar
Kejriwal 1993 (1) CCC 69; Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana AIR 1974 All
110; Dharambir Singh Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur
1979 HLR 305; Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. Jyoti
Rani Prasad AIR 1981 Delhi 99; Shree
Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South
India
Trust
Association
CSI
CINOD
Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955

List of Keywords
Maintenance pendente lite; Doctrine of alimony;
Maintenance allowance; Pendente lite and
expenses; No independent income; Necessary
expenses
of
the
proceedings;
Financial
assistance to avoid starvation or destitution;
Wife entitled for maintenance during the
continuance of transfer proceedings; Petitioner
not
be
absolved
from
liability
to
pay
maintenance

Case Arising From
Order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Additional
Principal
Judge
Family
Court,
Pilibhit
in
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Execution Case No. 9 of 2022 (Smt. Neeraj Saini
Vs. Ankit Suman).

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Petitioner
:-
Javed
Habib,Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. This petition has been filed to set
aside the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by
Additional Principal Judge Family Court,
Pilibhit in Execution Case No. 9 of 2022
(Smt. Neeraj Saini Vs. Ankit Suman).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
husband-petitioner filed a petition on
20.07.2018 seeking divorce from his wiferespondent No. 2 before the Judge, Family
Court under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The aforesaid case
was numbered as Case No. 286 of 2018.
The respondent-wife appeared and filed
written statement denying the allegations
made by the petitioner. During pendency of
this petition, an application under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was
filed by respondent No. 2 on 26.03.2019 to
which the petitioner filed objections on
01.10.2019. The said application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
decided by the order dated 30.10.2020
dismissing the application filed by the
wife-respondent No.2. The order dated
30.10.2020 was challenged by the wiferespondent No. 2 by filing First Appeal No.
722 of 2021 before this Court. The
judgment and order dated 30.10.2020
passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Pilibhit was set aside and the
application filed by respondent No. 2 under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
allowed on 18.11.2021 by this Court and
awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month
to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- to the minor
daughter payable with effect from date of
application. It was further directed that the
arrears of maintenance shall be paid to the
wife within a period of two months. The
wife was held to be entitled for the cost of
litigation incurred by her both before this
Court and the Family Court and a lump
sum Rs. 30,000/- was directed towards cost
of litigation which was to be paid within
one month from the date of judgment.
Order
passed
by
this
Court
dated
18.11.2021
was
challenged
by
the
petitioner before Supreme Court and the
Supreme
Court
by
its
order
dated
29.11.2022 directed for payment of
maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to wife and
Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor
daughter. Respondent No. 2 filed execution
case No. 9 of 2022 for executing the order
passed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage
Act
before
the
Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court Pilibhit. An
application Paper No. 45 Ga was filed by
the wife-respondent No. 2 with the
averment that till 26.08.2024, the petitioner
was liable to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to
respondent No. 2 which was not paid by the
petitioner and respondent No. 2 prayed that
the said amount be recovered from the
petitioner. By order dated 11.09.2024,
recovery warrant was issued against the
petitioner and therefore, the impugned
order dated 06.05.2025 was passed by the
Additional Family Court, Pilibhit issuing
recovery against the petitioner.

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that in view of the
provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, maintenance can only
be granted pendente lite the proceedings. It
has been further submitted by counsel for
the petitioner that the respondent-wife has
filed a petition before this Court for
8 All. Ankit Suman Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
379
transferring the divorce petition from
Pilibhit to Bareilly and this Court has
stayed the further proceedings of divorce
petition until further orders of the Court on
18.09.2023. He further submitted that the
moment proceedings of divorce were
stayed by this Court, the respondent was
not entitled for maintenance for the period
for which the proceedings remained stayed.

4. It has been further contended by
counsel for the petitioner that since the
proceedings of the matrimonial case filed
by the petitioner under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been stayed
by this Court in a transfer petition filed by
respondent-wife,
the
proceedings
for
divorce can not be considered as pending
and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is not
entitled for maintenance amount during the
period the proceedings of the matrimonial
case are stayed. It has been further
submitted by counsel for the petitioner that
on the one hand, respondent has got the
proceedings of the matrimonial case stayed
by filing a transfer petition before this
Court, on the other hand, the respondent is
claiming maintenance for the period for
which the proceedings are stayed and
pressing for recovery of the same. It has
also been contended by counsel for the
petitioner that the court below without
looking into these facts has erroneously
directed for issuance of recovery warrant
against the petitioner .

5. Before considering the submissions
of the petitioner, it would be relevant to
look into the provisions of Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is quoted
as under:

"24. Maintenance pendente lite
and expenses of proceedings.-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:Provided that the application
for the payment of the expenses of the
proceeding and such monthly sum during
the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date
of service of notice on the wife or the
husband, as the case may be."

6. 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
(maintenance) 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 object of this provision is that a
financially weak party to a matrimonial
proceedings may not become unprovided
for and may not be handicap in presenting
his or her case in defending his or her legal
rights. 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. Not only
the party against whom a petition is
instituted in a court may claim maintenance
pendente lite and the expense of litigation
but also a party who has instituted the
litigation can also claim the cost of
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
litigation and maintenance pendente lite in
case,
he
or
she
does
not
possess
independent income sufficient for his or her
support (maintenance) during litigation and
the expenses of the proceedings.

7. At the very outset, it may be pointed
out that the doctrine of alimony and the
maintenance allowance due to the wife
from her husband finds its root in the
economic and social conditions under
which normally most of the married
woman have to live and depend upon the
income of their husband, who holds the
position like that of a guardian of his wife.
The provision for allowance is intended to
secure justice to the wife who has no
independent income sufficient for her
support and necessary expenses of the
proceeding while prosecuting or defending
any proceedings under the matrimonial
law. It is on this principle that the law
relating to the matrimonial causes provides
for rules for payment of maintenance
pendente
lite
and
expenses
of
the
proceedings by the husband to the wife.
These are the principles which have been
incorporated in Section 24 of the Act which
further lays down that any order for
pendente lite maintenance and expenses for
the proceedings can be made not only in
favour of the wife but also in favour of the
husband who has no independent income
sufficient for his/her support and necessary
expenses of the proceedings. Thus, the very
object and purpose of the provisions
contained in Section 24 is to provide
immediate relief to the wife or the husband,
as the case may be, in any proceedings
initiated under the Hindu Marriage Act.

8. In Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 this
salutary provision of Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 was provided to
provide financial assistance to the wife
whom the husband has driven to litigation
or vice versa in order to avoid starvation or
destitution,
monthly
maintenance
was
provided.

9. This departure from the general law
by which wives who, in most of cases,
were not in a happy financial position were
to be supported during the litigation. In this
background
the
word
'during
the
proceedings' under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
are
of
great
consequence.

10. This term would cover the
proceedings from the start till end to at
least from the date the application is made
till the termination of proceedings in the
Court.

11. The Full Bench of Jammu and
Kashmir High Court in case of Amrit Lal
Nehru Vs. Usha Nehru reported in AIR
1982 J&K 98 considered the date of
commencement
of
proceedings
and
termination of the proceedings in terms of
Section 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Hindu Marriage Act, 1980. Section 30 of
Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act,
1980 is the facsimile of Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as
under:

"30. Maintenance pendente lite
and expenses of proceedings.-- 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 petitioner the
expenses of the proceeding, and, monthly
during the proceeding such, sum as, having
8 All. Ankit Suman Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
381
regard to the petitioner's own income and
the income of the respondent it may seem to
the Court to be reasonable."

12. In paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the
judgment of the Full Bench in case of
Amrit Lal Nehru Vs. Usha Nehru (supra),
the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has
held as under:-

"11. There is no warrant for the
proposition that proceeding in a suit
commences
only
from
the
stage
contemplated by Order 13. On the other
hand, it commences with the filing of the
plaint. On the plaint being filed, summons
is issued to the defendant, who on its
service appears in the Court and files his
written statement. After the parties have
filed their pleadings, the Court for the first
time proceeds to apply its mind to the
controversy raised in the suit. This
controversy is then reduced to the form of
distinct issues, which are framed by the
Court, not only from the allegations made
by them in their pleadings, but also from
the allegations made by the parties on oath,
and
the
contents
of
the
documents
produced by them. That is one of the
reasons why production of documents in
terms of Order 13 is insisted on or before
this stage, which is called first hearing; the
other reason being preventing production
of fabricated documents. Then comes the
next stage in the proceeding. The parties
are asked to lead evidence in support of
their respective cases. After they have led
it, the Court proceeds to hear arguments
and give its judgment in the case. This is
the last stage in the proceeding, and the
last hearing in the suit. 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.
This
interpretation
also
accords
with
the
definition of the word proceeding given in
Black's Law Dictionary, wherein it has
been defined as: "regular and orderly
progress in form of law including all
possible steps in an action from its
commencement
to
the
execution
of
judgment"
(Blacks'
Law
Dictionary,
Revised Fourth Edition 1968).

12.
That
apart,
the
word
proceeding in Section 30 has to be given
the same meaning, even keeping in view its
intent and scope. 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. That is why Courts have
always
insisted
that
whenever
an
application is made under Section 30, it
must be disposed of before any further
steps are taken in the main case. They have
been gone to the extent of holding that the
Court in exercise of its inherent powers
should stay further proceedings in the main
petition till the order passed by it granting
maintenance pendente lite or litigation
expenses is complied with by the opposite
party."

13. In case of Vinod Kumar Kejriwal
Vs. Usha Kumar Kejriwal reported in
1993 (1) CCC 69, the Bombay High Court
has
considered
whether
during
the
pendency of an application under Order IX
Rule 4 of C.P.C. for restoring the divorce
petition, which was dismissed for default,
the wife can claim maintenance under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Contention raised before the Bombay
High Court was that Section 24 of the
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contemplates
the pending proceedings. Petition for
divorce was dismissed on 28.11.1985, the
application for restoration was filed on
04.12.1985 and therefore, there was no
proceedings before any Court in which the
application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage
Act
could
be
entertained.
Rejecting the contention as made before the
Bombay High Court, the High Court held
in paragraph No. 18 that even during
pendency of an application under Order IX
Rule 4 of C.P.C. for restoring the divorce
petition which was dismissed in default, an
application for maintenance under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will be
maintainable. Paragraph No. 18 of the
judgment in case of Vinod Kumar Kejriwal
Vs. Usha Kumar Kejriwal (supra) is quoted
as under:-

"18. In the first place, I have no
doubt that the proceedings under section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be
initiated even during the pendency of the
application either under Rule 13 of Order 9
or Rule 9 of Order 9 or Rule 4 of Order 9
of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the case
of Ramesh v. Savita (supra)1 this Court
was dealing with the question as to whether
pending the application under Rule 13 of
Order 9 the wife could maintain an
application under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The learned Chief Justice
answered the question in the affirmative.
Applying the same ratio and bearing in
mind the object of the provisions contained
in section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I
have no hesitation in holding that even
pending the application made by the
husband under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, the wife can initiate
proceedings under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. It should be borne in mind
that, in general, the husband is bound to
defray the wife's costs of the proceedings
under the Act and to provide her with the
maintenance and support pending disposal
of the proceedings. Having regard to the
object that is sought to be achieved by
making
provision
for
awarding
maintenance pendente lite and for making
provision for payment of expenses of
proceedings, the expression "proceedings
under the Act" appearing in section 24
cannot be given a narrow and restrictive
meaning.

Secondly, in the case of Ramesh
Dev Anand v. Smt. Devinder Kaur (supra)2
it has been clearly held as under:

"In the view that proceedings
under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code for
restoration are proceedings under the Act,
it can safely be held that proceedings for
setting aside the ex-parte decree are also
proceedings under the Act."

I am in agreement with the view
expressed in the said decision.

Thirdly, a reference may usefully
be made in this behalf to the provisions of
section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act
which
states
that
subject
to
other
provisions contained in this Act, and to
such rules as the High Court may make in
this behalf, all proceedings under this Act,
shall be regulated, as far as may be by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Punjab
and Haryana High Court had also an
occasion to consider a somewhat similar
question in the case of Madan Lal v. Meena
(supra). Though the question which directly
arose there was one of granting relief to
the wife under section 24 pending an
application under Order 9, Rule 13 for
setting aside the ex-parte decree, referring
to the object and the rationale of the
8 All. Ankit Suman Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
383
provisions of section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, it was held that to obviate
against the financial handicap of a party to
the litigation, the provisions of section 24
of the Act can be invoked even during the
pendency of the application under Order 9,
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus,
having regard to the object of section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, and having regard
to the ratio of the above mentioned 3 cases,
viz. (i) the decision of this Court reported in
MANU/MH/0322/1985: 3 M.C. Page 74, (ii)
MANU/DE/0395/1984: A.I.R. 1985 Delhi 40,
and (iii) MANU/PH/0169/1988: A.I.R. 1988
(P & H) 31, I am of the view that the
provisions of section 24 can be invoked by
the spouse even during the pendency of an
application under Order 9, rule 4 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. In the facts of this case,
therefore, the wife is entitled to initiate
proceedings under section 24 of the Act even
during the pendency of the husband's
application for restoration of his petition
which was dismissed on 28th November,
1985."

14. In case of Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana reported
in AIR 1974 All 110, an objection was
raised before this Court interpreting the
words ' in any proceedings under this Act'
that a revision application under Section
115 of C.P.C. will not be a proceedings
under the Act. The said contention was not
accepted by this Court and this Court held
in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment in case
of Surendra Kumar Asthana Vs. Kamlesh
Asthana (supra) that Court can grant relief
on an application under Section 24 even in
a revision filed under Section 115 of C.P.C
against an order passed in proceedings
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Paragraph No. 9 of the judgment in case of
Surendra Kumar Asthana Vs. Kamlesh
Asthana is quoted as under:

"9. The second objection is based
on the use of the words "in any proceeding
under this Act" and it is contended that a
revision application under Section 115,
Civil Procedure Code, is not a proceeding
under the Act. It is to be noticed that the
Act does not directly provide for an appeal
or a revision from orders passed in
proceedings under it. Section 21 of the Act
provides
that
subject
to
the
other
provisions contained in the Act and of the
rules made by the High Court all
proceedings under the Act shall be
regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 28 provides
that all decrees and orders made by the
court in any proceeding under this Act
shall be enforced in like manner" as the
decrees and orders of the court made in the
exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are
enforced, and may be appealed from under
any law for the time being in force. Appeals
from decrees and orders made under the
Act lie under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Likewise, revisions also lie against orders
made in proceedings under the Act under
the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not
disputed and there is good authority for the
same that relief under Section 24 can be
granted in an appeal from a decree or
order passed under the Act. I can see no
reason why then relief under Section 24
cannot be granted in a revision against an
order passed in a proceeding under the
Act. The words "in any proceeding under
this Act" have been used in a wider sense to
include all proceedings arising out of
orders passed in petitions filed under the
Act. To hold otherwise would defeat the
very purpose of Section 24. In my opinion,
it is competent for this Court to grant relief
on an application under Section 24 even in
a revision filed under Section 115, Civil
Procedure Code, against an order passed
in proceedings under the Act. The second
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection raised by Sri K. C. Saxena is also
without force."

15. In case of Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana (supra) this
court has gone to the extent of holding even
in cases where plea as to jurisdiction of the
court is raised, the relief under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act can be granted
before
considering
the
question
of
jurisdiction. Paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 of the
judgment in case of Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana (supra) are
quoted as under:

"6. The grant of relief under
Section 24 is not dependent either on the
merits of the petition or on the decision of
any particular issue or issues in the case or
upon the ultimate success or failure of the
petition. The reason behind the rule in
Section 24 for payment of pendente lite
maintenance is that, where marriage is
admitted, it is the duty of the affluent
spouse to maintain the indigent spouse.
This duty is unaffected by the pleas raised
in the petition even if the plea be to the
jurisdiction of the court. If on the face of
the petition it is maintainable and the court
has jurisdiction to entertain it, then the
court has also the power to grant relief
under Section 24 even if an objection to the
jurisdiction is raised and even before such
an objection is decided. Such an objection
will be an issue in the case. Likewise, the
reason for the provision for payment of
expenses is that a wife or a husband, who
has no independent income sufficient to
meet the necessary expenses of the
proceeding, may not be handicapped. Such
a spouse should not be left without means
of putting her or his case fairly before the
Court. It can be no defence to the claim for
expenses that a question of jurisdiction has
been raised. Expenses can be awarded even
before the question of jurisdiction is
decided.

8. Therefore, even where a
question of jurisdiction has been raised, the
court has, before deciding that question,
power to grant relief under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act provided that, on
the averments made in the petition, the
petition is maintainable and the court,
prima facie, has jurisdiction to entertain it.
Though the court has this power, it has a
discretion under Section 24 till the question
of jurisdiction is decided. It would,
however, be desirable to allow expenses to
the needy spouse to fight out the issue of
jurisdiction also, even where the court
thinks that the question of pendente lite
maintenance should be decided after the
issue of jurisdiction has been decided. The
first objection raised by Sri K. C. Saxena
does not stand in the way of granting relief
to the wife in this case under Section 24."

16. In case of Dharambir Singh Vs.
Smt. Manjit Kaur reported in 1979 HLR
305, the Punjab and Haryana High Court
held that a petition under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act will be maintainable
even in case where an ex-parte order under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is
sought to be recalled by the other party,
which is pending. Paragraph Nos. 1 and 2
of the judgment in case of Dharambir Singh
Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur (supra) is quoted as
under:-

"1.
The
respondent
filed
a
petition under section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act (hereinafter to be called the
Act) for judicial separation against her
husband (the petitioner). During the
pendency of this petition she filed an
application under section 24 of the Act for
the grant of expenses of the litigation and
8 All. Ankit Suman Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
385
also maintenance pendente lite. The trial
Court allowed this application and granted
expenses and maintenance by ex-parte
order dated 29th November, 1974. By this
order an amount of Rs 100/- was allowed
as litigation expense and Rs. 150/- as
maintenance pendente lite. The present
petitioner move the trial Court for setting
aside this ex-parte order, the proceedings
in which are still pending. The respondent
filed another application undo section 24 of
the Act for litigation expenses as well as
maintenance
in
these
subsequent
proceedings. The petitioner raised the
preliminary objection that the second
application under section 24 of the Act was
not maintainable. This objection did not
find favour with the trial Court an it was
held that the second application was also
maintainable. It is this order which has
been challenged in the present revision
petition.

2. It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
section 24 of the Act contemplates only one
application during the pendency of the
main petition under the provisions of the
Act and the second application under this
provision was not maintainable. A close
perusal of section 24 of the Act, however,
shows that any of the parties who has no
independent income to maintain herself or
himself and to meet the necessary expenses
of the proceedings, has the right to claim
litigation
expenses
and
interim
maintenance "in any proceedings" under
this Act. The provision is clear and
includes all proceedings arising out of or in
any manner linked with the main petition.
Clearly the proceedings arising out of the
application by the husband to get the exparte order under section 24 set aside are
linked with the main petition. The argument
that the second application does not come
within the ambit of the provision is not at
all tenable. "

17. In case of Yogeshwar Prasad Vs.
Jyoti Rani Prasad reported in AIR 1981
Delhi 99, the Delhi High Court held that
during pendency of the proceedings under
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, the application under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act can be filed filed
and entertained. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 in
case of Yogendra Prasad Vs. Jyoti Rani
Prasad (supra) is quoted as under:-

"(4) The next contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that
an interim maintenance under Section 24 of
the Act can be granted only in a proceeding
under the Act. The Act envisages two
periods in the proceedings; (1) duration of
the main petition and (2) the period after a
decision of the main E petition. Section 24
relates to the first period while Section 25
relates to the second period. That is why
Section 24 precedes Section 25. The Act
itself treats these periods differently. It is
further evident by the selective use of the
word 'petition' in relation to the main
reliefs and use of 'application' in relation to
the rest. That is because the application
under Section 25 of the Act is merely
ancillary and incidental to the main
petition as held in Patel Dharamshi Premji
v. Bai Sakar Kanji MANU/GJ/0082/1968:
AIR1968Guj150. There is therefore, no
justification for treating it as a proceeding
under the Act which is a proceeding
initiated on a petition for any of the main
reliefs of restitution of conjugal rights,
judicial
separation,
dissolution
and
annulment. Section 24 applies only when
the main petition is pending. The incidental
and ancillary provisions in Section 25 had
to be made because if this were not done,
then no maintenance could be claimed
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
except whatever could be claimed under
Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and
Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. It is Therefore
urged that there is a compelling reason for
interpreting 'husband and wife' in Section
25 so as to include ex-spouses but there is
no such compulsion in respect of Section
24. If the legislature wanted to apply these
provisions to former spouses, there was
nothing to prevent it from making it
specifically clear. The precise argument is
that Section 24 is not applicable because
the application under Section 25 is not a
proceeding under the Act between a
husband and a wife.

(5) After careful consideration, I
feel, I must up bold the view of the learned
Additional
District
Judge
that
'any
proceedings under this Act' appearing in
Section 24 will cover the proceedings
under Section 25 thereof. Section 25
contemplates that an order for permanent
alimony can be made at the time of the
passing of any decree under the Act or any
time thereafter. Now, if a spouse has to
make an application after any decree under
the Act has been passed and has no
sufficient means of his own, such spouse
has to be provided for prosecuting the
application for permanent alimony when
the other spouses opposes any grant
thereof. Any other construction will be
narrow and will lead to frustration of the
provisions. This is so obvious that no
precedent need be cited. Yet there is an
authority for this view: See Mahinder Singh
v. Om Piari 1975 Rlr (Note 4(3). If it is
conceded that the application under
Section 25 even in case of dissolution or
annulment of marriage can be deemed to
be a proceeding between a wife and a
husband, as it should, there is no scope for
argument that it is not such a proceeding
within the meaning of Section 24. In Patel
Dharamshi Premji (supra) it was held (vide
para 3, page 153, Col. 2, penultimate
sentence of the report) that the application
under Section 25 is an application in the
main proceeding for claiming an incidental
relief consequent upon granting of the
substantive relief by the Court. That
provides a complete answer to the
argument of the petitioner. To my mind
Section 25 is a continuation of the main
proceedings. Placement or numbering of
the sections or the description of one sent
of documents as petitions and the other set
as applications can not alter this position.
This has been done to avoid any avoidable
confusion. I also do not see any reason why
Section 24 be restricted to the period
between institution of a petition and its
termination when it is widely worded.
There is no doubt that proceedings under
Section 25 are proceedings under the Act
and will be included in 'any proceeding'
under the Act. The purpose of using the
words husband' or 'wife' is to identify the
position occupied by the parties in the main
proceedings, and not to exclude exspouses."

18. 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.

19. Coming to the facts of the present
case, an order under Section 24 of the
8 All. Sunil Dubey Vs. Minakshi
387
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed
finally by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
judgment and order dated 29.11.2022. The
said order has neither been recalled nor
been set aside and therefore, the liability to
make payment in terms of the order
continues unless the same is set aside,
varied or modified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court .

20. So far as contention of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
proceeding of the matrimonial case filed by
the petitioner was got stayed by respondent
No. 2 by filing a transfer petition before
this Court therefore, during the period for
which
the
proceedings
are
stayed,
petitioner will not be liable to make
payment of maintenance under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is
wholly misconceived for two reasons,
firstly, mere stay of proceedings by this
Court will not amount to termination of
the proceedings. In this regard, Supreme
Court in case of Shree Chamundi
Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South
India Trust Association CSI CINOD
Secretariat, Madras, reported in (1992)
3 SCC 1, has held that a distinction has
to be made between quashing of an order
and staying of an operation of an order.
Quashing
of
an
order
results
in
restoration of the position as it stood on
the date of passing of the order which has
been quashed. The staying of operation of
an order does not, however, lead to such
result. It only means that order which has
been stayed would not operate from the
date of passing of the stay order and it
does not mean that the said order has
been
wiped
out
from
existence.
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.

21.
Secondly,
even
the
proceedings for transfer of matrimonial
case from Pilibhit to Bareilly would
amount
to
the
proceedings
contemplated under Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 in view of judgment of this
Court in case of Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana (supra)
and therefore, the wife is entitled for
maintenance during the continuance of
transfer proceedings.

22. 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.

23. No illegality has been committed
by the court below in directing for recovery
of the said amount. The petition lacks merit
and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 387
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9347 of 2025

Sunil Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
Minakshi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondent: