Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHITRA LEKHA - Appellant
Versus
RANJIT RAI - Respondent
First Appeal Order 72 of 1974
Decided On : 07/30/1976
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 24 - INTERIM MAINTENANCE - APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE AFTER TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS - NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed an application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after the petition for judicial separation filed by the husband was dismissed. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the case had come to an end and there was no valid ground to grant alimony or litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can only be granted if there are proceedings pending under the Act and the applicant has no independent income sufficient for support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. The object of the provision is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself during the pendency of the proceedings and to have sufficient funds to defend or carry on the litigation.
Issues: Whether an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be granted after the termination of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse during the pendency of the proceedings and to have sufficient funds to defend or carry on the litigation. Once the proceedings have been terminated, there is no legal basis for granting interim maintenance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the trial court was correct in dismissing the application for interim maintenance.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
An application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can only be granted if proceedings are pending under the Act and the applicant lacks independent income sufficient for support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings [judgement_subject].
Once the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act have been terminated, there is no legal basis for granting interim maintenance or litigation expenses under Section 24, as the provision is intended to provide financial support during the pendency of such proceedings [judgement_subject].
The object of Section 24 is to assist indigent spouses to maintain themselves during ongoing proceedings and to have sufficient funds to defend or carry on litigation. It is not meant to provide maintenance or damages outside the scope of the proceedings [judgement_subject].
Orders for interim alimony or expenses should be made promptly during the proceedings, but if no proceedings are pending or left to prosecute or defend, Section 24 cannot be invoked to grant such relief [judgement_subject].
The discretion to grant interim maintenance and expenses is exercised judicially, considering the resources of the spouse and the necessity of support during the pendency of the case. The proceedings must be ongoing at the time of such orders [judgement_subject].
If the proceedings have been concluded, the purpose of Section 24 is fulfilled, and further orders for interim maintenance or expenses are not permissible, as the aim of the provision is to support during the litigation, not after its conclusion [judgement_subject].
The court emphasized that while interim orders should be expedited and not delayed, the legal framework restricts such orders to ongoing proceedings, and no order can be issued once the case has ended [judgement_subject].
The case underscores that the object of Section 24 is to facilitate proper presentation and defense in ongoing proceedings, and it does not serve as a remedy for post-termination support or compensation [judgement_subject].
In the specific case discussed, the court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the application for interim maintenance after the termination of the proceedings was not maintainable under Section 24 [judgement_subject].
Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification on any specific aspect.
( 1 ) THIS first appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), has been filed by the wife against the order of Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge, dated 23rd October, 1973.
( 2 ) THE material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The parties had been married on 28th June, 1971. The respondent husband filed a petition for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty under S. 10 (1) (b) of the Act. This petition was dismissed with costs in 1973. During the pendency of the petition the appellant, soon after filing the written statement, made an application on 10th August, 1971 under S. 24 of the Act for grant of ad interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The respondent contested the application on the ground that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and unless this was decided interim alimony could not be granted. The objection was repelled by the trial court and a revision against the same was dismissed with costs. The respondent, instead of pursuing the petition absented himself from the court and his petition was, as mentioned above, dismissed with costs.
( 3 ) THEN the appellant before me moved an application before the court below to the effect that her application for interim alimony filed on 10th August, 1971 be granted and the alimony and litigation expenses be awarded to her. This application has been refused by the court below mainly on the ground that the case itself had come to an end and there was no valid ground to grant alimony or litigation expenses. An authority of the High Court of Myosre, N. Sub- ramanyam v. Mrs. M. G. Saraswathi, AIR 1964 Mys 38, was cited before the learned Judge, who has distinguished the same. Mr. Sethi has challenged the order, of the court in this appeal. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, who has not appeared and he has been proceeded against ex parte.
( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Sethi and have asked him if there is any other authority on the point in his favour, but he has Stated that there is no other decision of the courts taking the view that interim alimony can be granted after termination of the proceedings. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:
"where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceeding tuch sum as, having regard to the petitioner s own income and the income of the respondent it may seem to the court to be reasonable. "a bare perusal of the statutory provision shows that it is a condition precedent that there must be proceedings pending under the Act and it should appear to the court that the applicant has no independent income sufficient for support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, then it may pass an order for payment of expenses of the proceedings and monthly during the proceeding such amount. . . . . . as it may seem to the court to be reasonable. The object behind the provision of law is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself (or himself, as the case I may be) during the pendency of the proceedings and also to have sufficient funds to defend or carry on the litigation, so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of funds (see Smt. Anuradha v. Santhosh Nath Khanna, ILR (1976) Delhi 267: (AIR 1976 Delhi 246) ). In Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishna Kumar, AIR 1961 Pandh 42 I. D. Dua J. (as he then was) observed for the Division Bench that the object and purpose of S. 24 was to enable the court to see that the indigent spouse was put in a financial condition in which the party concerned might produce proper material and evidence in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
