Stay of Matrimonial Proceedings Does Not Suspend Section 24 HMA Maintenance; Transfer and Ancillary Proceedings Are “Proceedings under the Act”

Case: Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another | Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:133601 | Court No. 9 | Allahabad High Court

Coram: Hon’ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

Date of Judgment: 7 August 2025

Introduction

This supervisory jurisdiction petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, issuing recovery for arrears of maintenance pendente lite awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The petitioner-husband argued that the wife’s entitlement to Section 24 maintenance ceased for the period during which proceedings in the matrimonial case (a divorce petition under Section 13 HMA) were stayed by the High Court on a transfer application. The central questions were:

Whether a stay of the main matrimonial proceedings suspends the accrual and enforceability of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA;
Whether transfer proceedings and other ancillary or appellate proceedings qualify as “proceedings under the Act” for purposes of Section 24;
Whether execution/recovery of arrears of Section 24 maintenance is proper during such stay.

The background thread shows a typical maintenance litigation trajectory. The husband filed for divorce in 2018. The wife’s Section 24 application (filed in March 2019) was initially dismissed by the Family Court in October 2020. On appeal, the High Court allowed Section 24 on 18 November 2021, awarding Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000 to the minor daughter, from the date of the application, along with litigation costs. The Supreme Court, by order dated 29 November 2022, modified the child’s component to Rs. 5,000 per month while maintaining Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife. The wife launched execution (Execution Case No. 9 of 2022). A recovery warrant followed. Meanwhile, on the wife’s transfer petition, the High Court stayed further proceedings in the divorce petition on 18 September 2023. The husband’s present Article 227 petition sought to quash the subsequent recovery direction (6 May 2025), advancing the stay-based non-accrual argument.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the Article 227 petition, upholding the Family Court’s order issuing recovery of maintenance pendente lite arrears.
Maintenance under Section 24 HMA continues “during the proceeding,” and the expression “in any proceeding under this Act” is to be read broadly. A mere stay of the main matrimonial case does not terminate proceedings or the obligation to pay Section 24 maintenance.
Transfer proceedings, appellate/revisional proceedings, restoration proceedings, and even post-decree proceedings (e.g., for permanent alimony under Section 25) are encompassed within “any proceeding under the Act.”
The Supreme Court’s maintenance order dated 29 November 2022 remained unmodified; therefore, the liability to pay persists unless varied or set aside by the Supreme Court itself.
There was no illegality in the Family Court issuing recovery for arrears; the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Amrit Lal Nehru v. Usha Nehru, AIR 1982 J&K 98 (FB)

The Full Bench construed “proceeding” broadly: it commences with filing and continues through every stage till judgment and even execution. The court emphasized the purpose of interim maintenance—to avert destitution and ensure an indigent spouse is not handicapped in litigation—and approved staying the main proceeding until compliance with maintenance orders. This directly supports the Allahabad High Court’s approach to read “during the proceeding” expansively and to prioritize Section 24’s purpose over procedural technicalities.
Vinod Kumar Kejriwal v. Usha Kumar Kejriwal, 1993 (1) CCC 69 (Bom.)

The Bombay High Court held that a Section 24 application is maintainable even when the main divorce petition was dismissed for default and an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC is pending. The ruling rejects a narrow, literal view of “pendency,” recognizing restoration proceedings as part of the “proceeding under the Act.” This supports the Allahabad High Court’s conclusion that Section 24 covers phases beyond an actively running trial, including collateral remedies to revive it.
Surendra Kumar Asthana v. Kamlesh Asthana, AIR 1974 All 110

The Allahabad High Court itself had earlier held that Section 24 relief can be granted even in a revision petition under Section 115 CPC arising out of an order in HMA proceedings. It emphasized that:
- Section 24 relief is not dependent on the merits of the main case and can be awarded even where jurisdiction is under challenge;
- “Any proceeding under the Act” includes proceedings arising out of or linked with HMA petitions, by virtue of Section 21 HMA (CPC applies) and Section 28 HMA (appeals/enforcement).
The present judgment draws on this logic to extend the umbrella to transfer proceedings too—treating them as part of the “proceeding under the Act,” thereby rejecting the argument that maintenance falls away during the stay on the main suit.
Dharambir Singh v. Smt. Manjit Kaur, 1979 HLR 305 (P&H)

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a fresh Section 24 application is maintainable even during proceedings to set aside an ex parte Section 24 order. This reinforces that “any proceedings” includes all proceedings linked to or arising from the principal matrimonial cause, backing the present decision’s inclusivity.
Yogeshwar Prasad v. Jyoti Rani Prasad, AIR 1981 Delhi 99

The Delhi High Court clarified that even proceedings under Section 25 HMA (permanent alimony) fall within “any proceeding under the Act” for Section 24 purposes. Thus, interim support can be granted to enable prosecution of a Section 25 application, even post-decree. This serves the broader interpretive approach adopted in the present case: the Act’s remedial provisions are to be construed purposively to ensure access to justice.
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1

The Supreme Court distinguished between quashing an order (which obliterates it) and staying an order (which merely suspends its operation prospectively without wiping it out). The Allahabad High Court used this bedrock principle to hold that a stay of proceedings does not extinguish or terminate those proceedings; hence, the obligation to pay maintenance pendente lite continues.

Legal Reasoning

The Court begins with the text of Section 24 HMA, which authorizes monthly support and litigation expenses “during the proceeding,” upon satisfaction that a spouse lacks independent means. It underscores the social purpose behind Section 24: to prevent the financially weaker spouse from being outspent and silenced by the other, ensuring fair participation in the litigation.

From this foundation, the Court reasons as follows:

Broad ambit of “any proceeding under this Act” and “during the proceeding”: Drawing on multiple High Court decisions (J&K Full Bench, Bombay, Delhi, P&H, and prior Allahabad rulings), the Court affirms a capacious reading that includes appeals, revisions, restoration applications, transfer proceedings, and even post-decree applications for permanent alimony. The expression is not confined to an ongoing trial in the Family Court.
Stay is not termination: Applying Shree Chamundi Mopeds, a stay order does not put an end to the proceeding; it only pauses its operation. Therefore, the stay of the divorce case on a transfer petition cannot suspend the statutory maintenance liability under Section 24.
Transfer proceedings qualify as proceedings “under the Act”: By parity of reasoning with revisions and appeals (Surendra Kumar Asthana), transfer proceedings are treated as ancillary proceedings arising from the matrimonial cause; thus, maintenance pendente lite continues to run during their pendency too.
Binding nature of the Supreme Court’s maintenance order: The Supreme Court’s order dated 29 November 2022 (Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000 per month to the minor daughter) governs. Since it has neither been recalled nor varied, the liability to pay persists, and arrears are recoverable.
Execution is proper: In the absence of modification by the competent court, the Family Court was justified in issuing recovery for arrears accumulated up to 26 August 2024 and thereafter.

Impact and Implications

On future litigation strategy:

Parties cannot game the system by obtaining stays (e.g., on transfer petitions) to avoid or defer accrual of pendente lite maintenance. The ruling shuts a common avenue of tactical non-payment.
Ancillary, appellate, revisional, and restoration proceedings are all treated as part of the matrimonial “proceeding,” minimizing litigation over artificial breaks in liability.

For Family Courts and executing courts:

They can confidently proceed with execution/recovery of Section 24 arrears notwithstanding a stay of the main trial, unless the maintenance order itself is stayed, varied, or set aside by the competent appellate forum.
The judgment reinforces the practice—endorsed in precedent—of prioritizing Section 24 applications and, in appropriate cases, insisting on compliance before proceeding further in the main cause, to preserve fairness.

Jurisprudential consolidation:

The decision harmonizes with a broad line of authorities across High Courts and rests on a Supreme Court principle (Chamundi Mopeds) about the effect of stay orders. It adds a clear, doctrinally sound affirmation that transfer proceedings, too, are “proceedings under the Act.”

Practical outcomes:

Spouses under a Section 24 order should seek modification in the same forum that granted it (here, the Supreme Court) if circumstances change; unilateral non-payment is risky and likely to attract coercive recovery.
Arrears typically run from the date of the application (as directed in the earlier High Court order of 18 November 2021), and stays of the main suit do not halt this clock.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Maintenance pendente lite (Section 24 HMA): Temporary financial support and litigation expenses awarded to a spouse who lacks adequate independent income, payable monthly “during the proceeding” to ensure a level playing field while the matrimonial dispute is litigated.
Permanent alimony (Section 25 HMA): Post-decree financial support. Courts have recognized that even proceedings under Section 25 are “proceedings under the Act,” so a spouse may seek interim support under Section 24 to prosecute a Section 25 application.
“Any proceeding under the Act”: Not limited to the trial stage. Includes appeals, revisions, restoration applications, transfer applications, and related steps arising from matrimonial causes. The key is the proceeding’s nexus to the matrimonial cause.
“During the proceeding”: The period of pendency of the matrimonial litigation and connected proceedings. It does not get extinguished because a court pauses the main suit through a stay order.
Stay vs. Quash (Chamundi Mopeds principle): A stay suspends operation; it does not erase the order or terminate proceedings. Quashing eliminates the order and restores the prior legal position.
Article 227 jurisdiction: The High Court’s supervisory power is limited. It corrects jurisdictional errors and patent illegalities, not routine factual or discretionary determinations. Here, no illegality was found in issuing recovery.
Execution/Recovery of Section 24 orders: Orders under HMA are enforceable like civil decrees (Section 28 HMA). Family Courts may employ coercive processes for arrears, as appropriate to the jurisdiction, unless the order is stayed or modified by a competent court.
Section 21 HMA: The CPC applies to HMA proceedings “as far as may be,” facilitating the inclusion of appeals, revisions, transfers, and restorations within the umbrella of “proceedings under the Act.”

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another squarely addresses and resolves an oft-litigated point: a stay of the matrimonial suit does not suspend or extinguish the obligation to pay maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA. By reaffirming a purposive, socially responsive construction of “any proceeding under the Act” and “during the proceeding,” the Court aligns with a robust line of precedent treating appeals, revisions, restorations, transfer proceedings, and even Section 25 applications as integral parts of the matrimonial proceeding continuum.

Two doctrinal affirmations stand out. First, the effect of a stay is merely suspensive; it neither obliterates the proceeding nor halts Section 24 accruals. Second, transfer proceedings themselves are “proceedings under the Act,” thus maintaining the continuity of the spouse’s entitlement to interim maintenance. Practically, the ruling discourages strategic resort to stays or transfer motions to evade maintenance, reassures Family Courts about pressing execution for arrears, and emphasizes that modification of a subsisting Section 24 order must be sought from the competent forum—in this case, the Supreme Court that passed the operative maintenance order.

In the broader legal context, the judgment fortifies the protective architecture of the Hindu Marriage Act by ensuring that financial asymmetry does not defeat access to justice. It will likely guide Family Courts and practitioners in Uttar Pradesh and serve as persuasive authority elsewhere, consolidating the jurisprudence that treats Section 24 as a continuing lifeline for the indigent spouse across the full span of matrimonial litigation.

Stay of Matrimonial Proceedings Does Not Suspend Section 24 HMA Maintenance; Transfer and Ancillary Proceedings Are “Proceedings under the Act” — Allahabad High Court in Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. (2025:AHC:133601)