Back
Under Section 24 HMA Survives Pending Appeal:
In a significant ruling aimed at ensuring financial stability for spouses during legal battles, the has clarified that granted under the does not automatically terminate when a issues a . A division bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that such maintenance continues during the , viewing the as a direct continuation of the original .
The Backdrop of the Dispute The case involved a marriage solemnized in , with the parties drifting apart in . Following a petition for divorce filed by the husband—a serving officer in the —the mandated that 30% of his gross salary be remitted to his wife as . While this order was initially upheld by the High Court, the subsequent granting of a in by the triggered a fresh legal question: does the underlying entitlement to interim support vanish the moment the decree is signed?
Legal Arguments: The "Proceeding" Paradigm The husband, challenging the extension of maintenance, argued that specifically limits relief to the "during the proceeding" phase. He contended that once a decree is passed, the original proceeding has concluded, and Section 24 ceases to be applicable, leaving the spouse with no recourse but to initiate claims for under .
Conversely, the appellant argued that an appeal is not a fresh litigation but a functional continuation of the original suit. She asserted that depriving a dependent spouse of maintenance during the would defeat the very object of Section 24—preventing financial destitution during the duration of legal oversight.
The Court's Reasoning
The High Court rejected the husband's restrictive interpretation, emphasizing that the "proceeding" does not achieve finality at the
level.
"The proceeding does not attain finality merely because the
has delivered its judgment; it remains alive and pending until all
are exhausted,"
the Court observed.
The Bench further clarified that the husband’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in
was misplaced, as that judgment distinguished between Sections 24 and 25 at the point of
but did not prohibit the continuation of
during the
. Additionally, the Court struck down the argument regarding the appellant's employability, reiterating that
"mere capability to earn cannot be a reason to deny maintenance to a spouse who is not actually earning,"
a principle underscored by the Supreme Court in
.
Key Observations
The judgment relied on several core principles to justify the continued financial obligation:
*
Continuation of Proceedings:
"The word 'proceeding' in
must therefore be read to include the appellate stage."
*
The Aim of Section 24:
"To hold otherwise would leave the Appellant without any financial support during the appeal, which is precisely the mischief that Section 24 seeks to prevent."
*
Finality of Employment Arguments:
The Court noted that issues regarding the wife’s ability to work had already been addressed in prior orders and could not be re-agitated during every stage of the litigation.
Final Decision and Implications The High Court has directed the respondent to continue paying 30% of his gross salary as with effect from —the date the appellant filed her application—until the final disposal of the appeal or further orders from the Court.
This decision sets a crucial precedent for matrimonial litigants in Delhi, reinforcing the right to consistent financial support even after a is pronounced at the trial level. It ensures that the becomes a period of survival rather than one of financial struggle for the dependent spouse, while allowing independent processes under Section 25 to proceed in parallel without interference.
