The concept of maintenance occupies a central place in matrimonial law. It reflects the fundamental principle that marriage, as a social and legal institution, entails not just companionship but also reciprocal obligations of financial support. Under Indian law, various statutes provide for maintenance, ranging from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to personal laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
One of the most debated provisions is Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for maintenance pendente lite (temporary maintenance during litigation) and litigation expenses. The pressing question is whether this maintenance obligation continues even when divorce proceedings are stayed, suspended, or transferred by a higher court.
This article examines this legal dilemma in detail, using the recent Allahabad High Court judgment in Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:133601) as a focal point. It explores statutory interpretation, case law, and broader constitutional principles to answer whether the stay of proceedings can extinguish or suspend a spouse’s entitlement to interim maintenance.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 24 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.”
Key Features
- Beneficiaries: Either spouse can claim—husband or wife.
- Conditions: Lack of sufficient independent income.
- Scope: Applies “in any proceeding under this Act.”
- Nature: Temporary, ending with the conclusion of proceedings.
Legislative Intent
- To prevent economic hardship for a weaker spouse forced into litigation.
- To ensure parity in contesting matrimonial disputes, so that justice is not skewed by financial imbalance.
- To safeguard constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14) and protection against exploitation (Article 21).
The Controversy: Effect of Stay on Proceedings
A recurring issue arises: What happens if the divorce or matrimonial proceedings are stayed by a superior court (for instance, during transfer petitions, appeals, or revisions)?
- Husband’s Argument: Once proceedings are stayed, the case is no longer “pending,” so the right to maintenance pendente lite must cease.
- Wife’s Argument: Stay is only a suspension, not termination; proceedings are technically still pending, and the obligation continues.
The Allahabad High Court addressed this issue directly in Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2025).
Case Background: Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Facts
- Husband filed for divorce in 2018.
- Wife sought interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA in 2019.
- Initially rejected, but allowed in appeal: ₹10,000/month to wife and ₹10,000/month to minor daughter (later modified by the Supreme Court to ₹10,000 + ₹5,000).
- Wife initiated execution proceedings for arrears.
- Husband argued that since the divorce proceedings were stayed in 2023 (due to wife’s transfer petition), liability for maintenance ceased during the period of stay.
Issue
- Whether a stay of divorce proceedings absolves the husband of liability to pay maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA.
Holding of the Court
The Allahabad High Court rejected the husband’s contention and held:
- Stay ≠ Termination: A stay order does not extinguish proceedings; it merely suspends their progress. Proceedings continue to remain pending in the eyes of the law.
- Maintenance Continues: The liability to pay interim maintenance persists despite the stay, unless the order granting maintenance is expressly set aside or modified.
- Transfer Proceedings Covered: Even transfer petitions qualify as “proceedings under the Act”; thus, entitlement to maintenance extends to this stage as well
Key Precedent Cited
- Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust (1992) 3 SCC 1 – Distinguished between quashing and staying an order. Stay does not obliterate the order; it merely keeps it in abeyance.
Thus, the Court dismissed the husband’s plea and directed the recovery of arrears.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam stated:
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…..
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.
Broader Jurisprudence on Section 24 HMA
Indian courts have repeatedly clarified the scope of “any proceeding under this Act” in Section 24.
1. Amrit Lal Nehru v. Usha Nehru (AIR 1982 J&K 98)
- Proceedings start from the filing of the petition and continue until the execution of the judgment.
- Interim maintenance is intended to ensure financial survival and legal parity throughout.
2. Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Kejriwal (1993 Bom HC)
- Even if the main divorce petition is dismissed for default, but restoration proceedings are pending, the spouse can claim Section 24 maintenance.
3. Surendra Kumar Asthana v. Kamlesh Asthana (AIR 1974 All 110)
- Revision proceedings under CPC also fall within the ambit of “any proceeding under this Act.”
- Section 24 applies even when jurisdictional objections are raised.
4. Dharambir Singh v. Manjit Kaur (1979 P&H HC)
- A second application for Section 24 relief is maintainable if earlier orders are challenged or recalled.
5. Yogeshwar Prasad v. Jyoti Rani Prasad (AIR 1981 Del 99)
- Applications under Section 25 HMA (permanent alimony) are also proceedings under the Act; hence, Section 24 applies even during such proceedings.
- Principle Evolved: Maintenance pendente lite is a continuous right until proceedings conclude finally, irrespective of procedural interruptions like stay, dismissal for default, or restoration.
Analytical Discussion
1. Meaning of “During the Proceedings”
- Proceedings commence with filing of the petition and end with its final disposal.
- Stay only freezes procedural steps; it does not erase the existence of proceedings.
2. Equity and Justice Consideration
- If stay were to suspend maintenance, the financially weaker spouse would be left destitute despite having no role in causing delays (sometimes the stay is sought by the other party or by necessity). This would defeat the very purpose of Section 24.
3. Doctrine of Continuing Obligation
- Marriage imposes continuing duties until dissolution. Interim maintenance is an extension of this duty during litigation, independent of procedural interruptions.
4. Abuse Prevention
If the husband’s argument were accepted, parties could exploit stay petitions to avoid maintenance, leading to grave injustice. Courts have consistently avoided such loopholes.
Constitutional Dimensions
- Article 14 (Equality before Law): Denying maintenance during stay discriminates against economically weaker spouses, usually women.
- Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity): Maintenance is essential for survival and dignity; suspension would violate constitutional guarantees.
- Directive Principles (Article 39): State must ensure that citizens are not forced into destitution due to gender or economic dependence.
Conclusion
The debate on whether interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA continues during stay of divorce proceedings has been decisively settled. The Allahabad High Court in Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2025) held that:
- Stay ≠ Termination. Proceedings remain pending, and maintenance liability continues.
- Transfer and ancillary proceedings also qualify as proceedings under the Act.
The right to maintenance persists until the final conclusion of litigation or until the maintenance order is varied/modified by a competent court.
Thus, maintenance under Section 24 of HMA continues even if divorce proceedings are stayed.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams