The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has established that appellate courts possess the authority to grant interim maintenance suo motu under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even when a financially dependent spouse has failed to submit a formal application for such relief. In a ruling aimed at preventing destitution, the Division Bench emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot be permitted to impede the court's duty to provide immediate financial support to a litigant unable to sustain themselves or effectively participate in matrimonial proceedings.

The decision arose during the consideration of an appeal filed by a husband challenging a 2025 family court order that had dismissed his divorce petition. During the proceedings before the High Court, the respondent-wife informed the bench that she had been left in a state of severe financial distress. She pointed out that despite a previous court order directing the appellant to pay ₹15,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not a single payment had been made, resulting in arrears totaling ₹3,75,000.

Addressing this disparity, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad underscored the court’s obligation to act as a "guardian" in family matters, noting that the legislative intent behind the Hindu Marriage Act is to ensure that matrimonial litigation remains a level playing field. The court observed that the economic status of one party should not dictate the outcome of a legal battle, nor should one spouse be silenced by the lack of resources to defend their rights.

Judicial Oversight and Equitable Relief

The bench focused on the remedial nature of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, characterizing maintenance pendente lite as a statutory right rather than a form of charity. By failing to remit the maintenance payments mandated by the family court, the appellant had created a situation where the respondent was essentially blocked from contesting the divorce appeal effectively. The High Court rejected the notion that the absence of a written application for maintenance should preclude judicial intervention, especially when the facts presented clearly highlighted the respondent's inability to survive.

Drawing on established legal doctrine, the court emphasized that procedural requirements are tools to assist in the administration of justice, rather than obstacles to be used to deny it. "Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice ," the bench stated, referencing the principle that the court’s primary duty is to discover the truth and ensure fairness. The judges noted that if the court were to refrain from acting simply because no formal application had been filed, it would be effectively condoning the respondent’s inability to defend her position, which would constitute a significant miscarriage of justice.

Ensuring Fairness in Matrimonial Disputes

The court’s reasoning was rooted in the concept that matrimonial litigation often involves a significant power imbalance. When one spouse is left without independent income, their ability to participate in the legal process is severely curtailed. The bench remarked that, "The absence of a formal application under Section 24 cannot, in such circumstances, fetter the jurisdiction of this Court to mould relief in aid of justice." By exercising its appellate powers, the High Court determined that it was necessary to secure the respondent's sustenance during the pendency of the appeal to ensure the case could proceed to a fair adjudication on its merits.

The Court held that the mandate to protect the economically weaker spouse is an essential component of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , which was created to ensure the speedy and fair settlement of family disputes. The judges reiterated that, "It is the utmost duty of this Court to ensure that a party to matrimonial litigation is not rendered destitute or incapacitated from prosecuting or defending the proceedings." By recognizing the respondent’s dire financial condition and the appellant’s failure to comply with prior maintenance directives, the High Court moved to bridge the gap in resources.

Operative Directions and Ongoing Compliance

Concluding its analysis on the necessity of interim relief, the High Court directed the appellant to pay a monthly sum of ₹15,000 to the respondent for the duration of the appeal. This amount is intended to cover both the respondent's living expenses and the costs associated with defending the case. The court clarified that this order is strictly an ad interim measure and does not reflect a final judgment on the merits of the underlying divorce petition.

The matter has been listed for a follow-up hearing in two weeks, at which time the court will review proof of the appellant’s compliance. The High Court has explicitly ordered the appellant to honor this commitment to ensure the appeal can proceed without further disruption. By taking this proactive stance, the judiciary has reinforced the principle that substantive justice must prevail over procedural rigidity, ensuring that even in the absence of a formal request, a party’s right to maintenance remains protected throughout the lifecycle of their case. The trial court record has also been summoned to facilitate a comprehensive review of the ongoing dispute.