Section 24 HMA Maintenance Pendente Lite Ceases on Claimant’s Remarriage (Even if Main Petition is Later Withdrawn)

1. Introduction

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in DHANANJAY KANWAR S/o Sh. Rajneesh Kanwar v. ASTHA THAKUR D/o Sh Vinay Thakur (FAO(FC) No.15 of 2024, decided on 31.12.2025), examined the correctness of an order granting maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) during the pendency of a Section 25 HMA petition for permanent alimony.

The appellant-husband challenged the Family Court’s order dated 02.04.2022 awarding the respondent-wife Rs.25,000/- per month (from the date of filing of the Section 24 petition) and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses. A key subsequent event was that the respondent remarried on 14.12.2022 while the Section 25 proceedings were still on foot, and later withdrew/ceased to press the main petition from the date of remarriage.

The principal issues were: (i) whether the Family Court erred in awarding Section 24 maintenance on the material available and after granting opportunities to the husband; and (ii) the effect of the respondent’s remarriage on her entitlement to Section 24 maintenance.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court found no merit in the husband’s challenge to the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, holding that adequate opportunities were given and no persuasive rebuttal evidence was led.
• However, it clarified and limited the period of entitlement: the respondent-wife was held not entitled to any maintenance after her remarriage on 14.12.2022.
• Accordingly, Section 24 maintenance was held payable only for the period 21.12.2018 to 14.12.2022.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment, as provided, does not cite any prior reported decisions by title. The Court’s reasoning proceeds primarily on: (i) the statutory framework of Sections 24 and 25 HMA; and (ii) case-specific procedural and evidentiary facts (opportunity to file replies, affidavits of assets and liabilities, and failure to prove documents or lead evidence).

While no named precedents are discussed, the Court’s approach aligns with established family law practice that Section 24 relief is interim in nature, depends on disclosed means, and is sensitive to subsequent events affecting entitlement.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Adequate opportunity and evidentiary failure: The High Court relied on the trial record (order sheets) to conclude that the Family Court gave “ample opportunities” to: file replies, submit affidavits of assets & liabilities, and seek consideration of the application. Despite this, the husband did not place material in evidence to substantiate his pleas or rebut the wife’s affidavit assertions. The Court also noted that although an application to place documents on record was allowed (01.10.2021), the husband made no effort to prove those documents in accordance with law.
2. Inconsistent/unsupported factual defences: The husband alleged the wife had served in the Army, left voluntarily, and ran a coaching centre earning sufficient income. The Court rejected this line mainly because nothing was placed on record to substantiate those assertions.
3. Past conduct and prior maintenance order: The Court found the husband’s allegations about the wife’s matrimonial fault unhelpful because the divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA was not contested, ended in an ex parte decree (31.01.2018), and was never assailed. It also treated the earlier Section 24 award during divorce proceedings (Rs.15,000/- per month) as relevant context, observing there was nothing to show the husband had challenged that order.
4. Remarriage as a terminating event for Section 24 entitlement: The key clarification is in paragraph 18: although the Family Court had awarded Section 24 maintenance “till pendency of the main petition,” the respondent’s remarriage on 14.12.2022 (prior to withdrawal of the main petition) meant she was not entitled to any maintenance after 14.12.2022. The High Court therefore confined the payable period to 21.12.2018–14.12.2022.

3.3 Impact

• Clear temporal limit tied to remarriage: The decision provides practical guidance that where a spouse receiving Section 24 maintenance remarries during pendency, entitlement to pendente lite maintenance should not continue beyond the remarriage date, even if the principal proceeding remains technically pending for some time or is withdrawn later.
• Reinforcement of disclosure-and-proof discipline: The judgment underscores that mere assertions in affidavits or pleadings about the other spouse’s income (or one’s own inability) will carry limited weight unless supported by evidence and properly proved documents, especially when opportunities were granted.
• Appellate restraint on factual reappreciation: By emphasizing the absence of perversity and the lack of rebuttal to the Family Court’s findings on capacity to pay, the ruling signals that appellate interference is unlikely where the trial court’s assessment is grounded in the record and procedure was fair.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 24 HMA (Maintenance pendente lite)

Interim financial support and proceeding expenses payable during the pendency of proceedings under the HMA, intended to enable a spouse without sufficient independent income to participate effectively in litigation.

Section 25 HMA (Permanent alimony and maintenance)

Longer-term maintenance/alimony that may be granted at or after final adjudication of matrimonial proceedings, based on factors such as income, conduct, and circumstances.

Maintenance “pendente lite”

Maintenance “during litigation”—it is not a final determination but a temporary arrangement while the case is pending.

Affidavit of assets & liabilities

A sworn disclosure of income, expenditure, assets, and liabilities used by courts to assess ability to pay and need. However, allegations typically need supporting material and may be tested by evidence.

Ex parte decree

A decree passed when one party does not contest/appear; it remains binding unless set aside through appropriate legal steps.

Non-speaking order / Perverse finding

A “non-speaking” order lacks reasons; a “perverse” finding is one no reasonable court could reach on the evidence. Here, the High Court found the Family Court’s conclusions were not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record.

5. Conclusion

The High Court largely affirmed the Family Court’s grant of Section 24 maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, emphasizing procedural fairness and the husband’s failure to substantiate objections with proof. Crucially, it laid down a clear operational rule in the facts of the case: Section 24 maintenance cannot run beyond the claimant-spouse’s remarriage. Thus, even where an order describes maintenance as payable “till pendency,” the court must account for remarriage as a terminating event and confine liability accordingly.