In a case arising from a petition seeking a declaration of marriage as void on the ground of a prior subsisting marriage under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Allahabad High Court was called upon to decide whether an applicant-spouse, accused of concealment and misrepresentation, could be denied maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of HMA. The Court's analysis sheds light on the scope of judicial discretion in granting interim maintenance and the extent to which a spouse’s conduct can influence such determination during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute initiated by the respondent-husband, who filed a petition in the Family Court to declare his marriage to the appellant-wife void, alleging contravention of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), as the appellant was purportedly married to another person at the time of their marriage. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 10th February, 2021, in Jhansi, following Hindu customs. After the marriage, the appellant resided with the respondent in Kanpur Nagar, where he is employed in the police force and allegedly operates a building material supply shop. During the pendency of the husband’s petition, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the HMA, seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The Family Court dismissed her application on 3rd May, 2025, citing her alleged concealment of a prior marriage that ended on 15th April, 2024. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court, challenging the Family Court’s decision.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel argued that there was a long association between the appellant and the respondent prior to their marriage, and the respondent was fully aware of her past. He emphasised that the marriage was solemnised on 10th February, 2021, in Jhansi, and the appellant subsequently resided with the respondent in Kanpur Nagar. He contended that the respondent, employed in the police force with an income of Rs.65,000 per month and additional earnings from a building material shop, was financially capable of providing maintenance. The appellant sought Rs.20,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite to meet her needs and litigation expenses.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent-husband opposed the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur. He submitted that the grant of maintenance under Section 24 is discretionary and that the conduct of the appellant, particularly her alleged concealment of a prior marriage, was a relevant factor. He argued that this concealment justified the Family Court’s decision to deny maintenance, as it cast doubt on the appellant’s credibility.
Observation of the Court:
The Court emphasised that the primary consideration under the provision of section 24 of the HMA is whether the applicant spouse lacks sufficient independent income to support themselves and cover litigation costs. It observed, “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.”
The Bench noted that the Family Court had dismissed the appellant’s application based on her alleged concealment of a prior marriage and a misrepresentation about working in the Income Tax department. However, it found no evidence on record to substantiate that the appellant had independent means of support. The Court further recorded, “As aforesaid, the learned Judge recorded in impugned judgment that appellant, after the marriage, came to Kanpur Nagar to reside with respondent,” indicating the parties’ cohabitation post-marriage.
The Court also clarified that the validity of the marriage, contested under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the HMA, was not the focus of the appeal. Instead, it prioritised the appellant’s immediate financial needs during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings.
Citing the absence of evidence regarding the appellant’s income, the Court held that the Family Court’s reliance on her alleged concealment was insufficient to deny maintenance. The Court also referenced the statutory mandate of Section 24, which aims to ensure financial support for a spouse lacking independent means, irrespective of the merits of the underlying matrimonial dispute.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court reversed the Family Court’s judgment and directed the respondent to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 15,000 per month to the appellant as maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, effective from the date of her application, i.e., 15th April, 2025.
The Court also directed that the arrears, including the current amount, were to be paid by 14th June, 2025, with subsequent monthly payments due by the 7th of each succeeding month. The Court also requested the Family Court to expedite the matrimonial proceedings, directing the appellant to avoid seeking adjournments. The appeal was allowed to this extent and disposed of.
Case Title: Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya Vs. Jitendra Gautam
Case No.: First Appeal Defective No. - 530 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena
Counsel for Appellant: Adv. Arun Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent: Adv. Akash Chandra Maurya
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :