The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the validity of a second marriage is not relevant when considering an application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decision came while setting aside a Family Court’s order that denied interim maintenance to a woman on the basis that she had concealed the existence of a previous marriage.
The judgment was delivered on 30 May 2025 by a division bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena in First Appeal Defective No. 530 of 2025.
Background
The appeal was filed challenging a Family Court order dated 3 May 2025, which had rejected an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed during the pendency of a matrimonial case. The petitioner had sought maintenance and litigation expenses, but the Family Court denied relief, holding that she had misrepresented her marital status by not disclosing that her previous marriage ended only on 15 April 2024.
Arguments by the Parties
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties had been in a long-standing relationship and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu customs in February 2021. It was argued that the appellant had resided with the respondent after marriage and had no independent means to support herself. A monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 was sought, taking into account the respondent’s alleged income of ₹65,000 from his government job and private business.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhdev Singh vs Sukhbir Kaur (AIR 2025 SC 951), arguing that the grant of maintenance is a matter of judicial discretion and that the appellant’s conduct disqualified her from receiving interim support.
Court’s Observations
The High Court emphasized that the core inquiry under Section 24 is whether the applicant has sufficient independent income for her support and for bearing litigation expenses, not whether the marriage is ultimately valid or not. The bench held:
“What is important is for the Court to ascertain whether the party seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses, requires it, as to be paid by the other party in a matrimonial dispute pending adjudication.”
It further observed:
“It may well be that appellant had concealed and misled respondent about herself. It may also well be that respondent may find success in the matrimonial proceeding, to get a decree declaring the marriage void. However, there was no material on record before the Family Court to show that appellant had any means to support herself.”
The Court also pointed out the absence of any evidence regarding employment:
“Respondent did not produce any evidence to show appellant is working, let alone in the Income Tax department.”
The bench noted that the Family Court had itself recorded that the appellant had resided with the respondent after the marriage, and her present residence was still at the address mentioned in the cause title. It reiterated that:
“Section 24 provides for a spouse to have maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.”
“The learned Judge recorded in impugned judgment that appellant, after the marriage, came to Kanpur Nagar to reside with respondent.”
Decision
Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court ruled:
“We are satisfied that there ought to have been direction for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to pay a consolidated sum of ₹15,000 per month as maintenance and litigation expenses. The amount is to be paid from 15 April 2025, the date of the original application. All arrears, including the current month’s dues, must be cleared by 14 June 2025, and subsequent payments are to be made by the 7th of each following month.
On a request made by the respondent’s counsel, the Court also urged the Family Court to expedite the disposal of the pending matrimonial case and directed that:
“Appellant must not be seen to seek adjournment.”
The Court concluded by expressing appreciation for the timely translation of the Family Court’s order and allowed the appeal to the extent stated.
Case No.: First Appeal Defective No. 530 of 2025
