Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles a spouse without sufficient independent income to maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses “in any proceeding under this Act” — and an appeal is such a proceeding. But must the claiming spouse first file a formal application? A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Ankita Gupta answered with a principle older than the statute: procedure is the handmaid of justice, not its mistress. Where the record itself showed a subsisting maintenance order and mounting unpaid arrears, the Court directed payment during the appeal without waiting for a separate application.
The appeal and its baggage
The appellant-husband had sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion in Original Suit No. 195 of 2024 before the Family Court. The suit was dismissed on 3 November 2025. The appeal to the High Court was 48 days out of time, supported by an application under the Limitation Act explaining that the appellant learnt of the judgment late and then faced delays in obtaining certified copies. The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad accepted the explanation and condoned the delay.
But the record carried heavier baggage than limitation. The respondent-wife held an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Rs 15,000 per month, operative from 16 July 2024 — and not a rupee had been paid. The accumulated arrears stood at Rs 3,75,000.
Section 24 invoked suo motu
Rather than leave the wife to chase execution while the husband prosecuted his appeal, the Bench invoked Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directed the appellant to pay Rs 15,000 per month to the respondent during the pendency of the appeal — without any formal application for pendente lite maintenance on the file. The Court anchored the direction in the settled idea that procedure is the handmaid of justice: procedural formalities cannot be allowed to override substantive fairness in matrimonial proceedings, particularly where the entitlement and the quantum had already been judicially determined in the Section 125 proceeding.
| Element | Position in the case |
|---|---|
| Delay in appeal | 48 days — condoned on explanation of late knowledge and copy delays |
| Existing maintenance order | Rs 15,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC from 16 July 2024 |
| Arrears at hearing | Rs 3,75,000 — admittedly unpaid |
| Appellate direction | Rs 15,000 per month under Section 24 HMA during the appeal, no formal application required |
What practitioners should take from it
First, an appellant who seeks the indulgence of condonation while ignoring a subsisting maintenance order invites exactly this kind of order: appellate courts increasingly treat compliance with maintenance directions as part of the equities of hearing a matrimonial appeal at all. Second, respondents need not always file a fresh Section 24 application at the appellate stage — where the entitlement is apparent from the record, a prayer in the counter-affidavit or even an oral request can suffice, though a short formal application remains the safer course in contested cases. Third, the decision illustrates the growing judicial impatience with maintenance default as a litigation strategy: the figure fixed in one forum travelled seamlessly into another.
Practice pointer: in Delhi as elsewhere, a husband appealing a matrimonial decree should regularise maintenance arrears before the first effective hearing. Courts routinely condition the hearing of the appeal — or interim relief in it — on compliance, and a record of wilful default colours every discretionary call that follows.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the essential facts?
The husband's divorce suit, filed on grounds of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed by the Family Court on 3 November 2025 after proceedings in which the wife did not appear. He appealed 48 days late, citing delays in learning of the judgment and obtaining certified copies. Meanwhile, the wife held a Section 125 CrPC order of Rs 15,000 per month effective 16 July 2024, under which nothing had been paid — arrears stood at Rs 3,75,000.
Why could the High Court grant maintenance without an application?
Section 24 HMA applies to any proceeding under the Act, including a first appeal, and the material needed for a threshold direction — the subsisting Section 125 order, the quantum already judicially fixed, and the admitted non-payment — was on the record. The Bench treated the absence of a formal application as a procedural gap that could not defeat substantive fairness in matrimonial proceedings.
Does the Section 125 order continue alongside the appellate direction?
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) and pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 HMA are parallel remedies, and courts apply a set-off discipline so that the same month is not paid twice. Here the appellate direction mirrored the Rs 15,000 figure already fixed, keeping the husband's obligation consistent across forums.
Was the delay in filing the appeal condoned?
Yes. The Court found the explanation — unawareness of the ex parte dismissal and time taken to obtain certified copies — sufficient, condoned the 48-day delay, and directed the trial court records to be called, listing the matter on 6 October 2026.