Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementHindu Marriage Act, 1955

Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

It was reinforces that maintenance orders under Section 24 are not automatically suspended due to procedural delays or stays.

Allahabad High Court·3 September 2025
Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

3 September 2025

Judges

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • In 2018, the husband (Ankit Suman) filed a divorce petition under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act.

  • The wife filed an application under Section 24 HMA seeking maintenance pendente lite.

  • The Family Court rejected the wife’s application on October 30, 2020.

  • On appeal, the High Court allowed her plea in November 2021, directing the husband to pay:

    • ₹10,000/month to the wife

    • ₹10,000/month to the minor daughter

    • ₹30,000 as litigation cost

  • The Supreme Court modified this order in November 2022, reducing the daughter’s maintenance to ₹5,000/month.

  • The husband did not comply, so the wife filed execution proceedings.

  • In September 2024, a recovery warrant was issued by the Family Court.

  • The husband filed a petition under Article 227 challenging the recovery order.

Issues

  1. Does the husband's obligation to pay maintenance under Section 24 HMA continue when divorce proceedings are stayed?

  2. Can maintenance continue during revisional, appellate, or restoration proceedings under HMA?

  3. Whether the stay of proceedings (via transfer or otherwise) terminates the entitlement to maintenance pendente lite?

  4. Was the Family Court justified in issuing a recovery warrant during a stay?

Held

  • The liability to pay maintenance under Section 24 HMA:

    • Does not end due to a stay order on divorce proceedings.

    • Remains enforceable through execution.

  • The petition under Article 227 was dismissed.

  • The husband's arguments were found to be legally misconceived.

Analysis

  • The Court took a beneficial interpretation of Section 24, emphasizing its protective purpose.

  • It was Referring to Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., the Court clarified that “stay” does not mean “termination”.

  • The phrase “during the proceedings” in Section 24 was interpreted broadly to include:

    • Pendency at trial stage

    • Appeals, revisions, and restoration applications

  • It was reinforces that maintenance orders under Section 24 are not automatically suspended due to procedural delays or stays.

  • It Promotes the idea that access to justice must not be denied due to technical procedural limitations.

  • It Aligns with other High Courts in extending spousal support rights throughout all stages of litigation.