The Allahabad High Court has made a significant ruling regarding interim maintenance claims, stating that a wife's past marital status is irrelevant when deciding on such claims under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This decision was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena while hearing an appeal filed by a woman whose application for interim maintenance had been rejected by the Family Court.
The case involved a husband who had filed a petition to declare the marriage void under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, arguing that his wife had a living spouse at the time of their marriage. During the pendency of this case, the wife applied for interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act. The Family Court rejected her application, citing that she had concealed her prior marriage, which had ended on April 15, 2024, and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.
However, the Allahabad High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the crucial factor is whether the party seeking maintenance needs it, which the other party in the matrimonial dispute should pay during the ongoing adjudication. The court clarified that the facts regarding the first husband need not be considered while deciding the application for maintenance.
The appellant argued that she had a long-standing relationship with the respondent, who worked in the Police Department and earned ₹65,000 per month, apart from running a construction material business. She claimed ₹20,000 per month for her sustenance. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that the grant of maintenance is discretionary and must consider the parties' conduct, alleging that the wife concealed her previous marriage.
The High Court noted that the husband had not provided documentary evidence to prove the wife's alleged employment. It acknowledged that the couple had lived together after their marriage and that the wife was now residing in Jhansi. Setting aside the Family Court's order, the High Court directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of ₹15,000 per month to the wife as maintenance pendente lite, starting from April 15, 2025, the date of her original application.
This ruling aligns with previous judgments emphasizing that a husband cannot deny maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on the ground that his marriage was void due to the wife's pre-existing, undissolved marriage, especially if the husband was aware or if the wife was duped. The primary objective of Section 125 Cr. P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of dependent spouses, children, and parents.
The Allahabad High Court has consistently upheld the rights of wives to receive maintenance, even in cases involving allegations of adultery or prior employment. For instance, the court has stayed interim maintenance orders pending adultery allegations, emphasizing the need for factual accuracy and legal compliance in such cases. It has also clarified that a wife's past employment cannot be a ground to deny her maintenance if she is currently unable to maintain herself.
In another case, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife who relinquishes all her rights, including alimony, at the time of a consensual divorce, cannot later demand maintenance from her former husband. Conversely, the court has also held that even if a husband becomes jobless, he remains responsible for paying maintenance to his wife if he is skilled, qualified, and able-bodied.
These rulings highlight the Allahabad High Court's commitment to ensuring that wives are not left destitute during matrimonial disputes and that maintenance is granted based on the current circumstances and needs of the parties involved, rather than being influenced by past events or allegations.
