Wife Entitled To Interim Maintenance Under Hindu Marriage Act During Pendency Of Appeal Against Divorce Decree: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife is entitled to continue receiving interim maintenance during the pendency of appeal against divorce decree under Hindu Marriage Act 1955, observing that an appeal is merely a continuation of the original matrimonial proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 654]
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar directed an Army officer to continue paying interim maintenance to his wife at the rate of 30% of his gross salary, after statutory deductions, during the pendency of her appeal challenging the dissolution of their marriage.
“The proceeding does not attain finality merely because the Trial Court has delivered its judgment; it remains alive and pending until all appellate remedies are exhausted. The word 'proceeding' in Section 24 of the HMA must therefore be read to include the appellate stage,” the Court held.
The parties were married in December 2012. The husband, a serving Indian Army officer, initiated divorce proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Family Court had directed the husband's employer to deduct 30% of his gross salary and remit it to the wife as interim maintenance with effect from May 18, 2022. That order was subsequently upheld by the High Court.
After the Family Court granted a decree of divorce in July 2025, the wife approached the High Court challenging the decree and sought continuation of the interim maintenance granted earlier.
Opposing the plea, the husband argued that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act expressly limits interim maintenance to the period “during the proceeding” and that the provision ceases to operate once the Family Court passes a decree. He contended that the wife's remedy thereafter lay under Section 25 of the Act, which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, adding that appellate proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act fall within the expression “any proceedings under this Act” contained in Section 24.
“When the Appellant challenges the divorce decree before this Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, she does so as a party to the same proceeding that commenced with the filing of HMA No. 15/2022. The subject matter, the parties, and the cause of action remain unchanged,” Court pointed.
The Bench distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, relied upon by the husband, observing that the judgment dealt with the distinction between Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and did not address whether maintenance under Section 24 continues during the pendency of an appeal.
“The argument that the Appellant has a pending application under Section 25 of the HMA before the learned Family Court and should pursue that remedy is not persuasive. Section 25 is an independent provision that operates at the stage of and after the decree. Section 24 is the provision specifically designed for maintenance during the pendency of proceedings, which includes the present appeal. The existence of a Section 25 remedy, which is yet to be adjudicated and may take considerable time, does not extinguish the entitlement of the Appellant under Section 24 of the HMA during the appellate proceedings. 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,” Court observed.
It further rejected the husband's contention that the wife, being an MBA graduate with prior work experience, was capable of maintaining herself. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Shailja v. Khobbanna, the Bench reiterated that mere capability to earn cannot be a ground to deny maintenance to a spouse who is not actually earning.
As such, the Court directed the husband to continue paying maintenance at the existing rate until the disposal of the appeal or until further orders.
Appearance: Mr. Vikram Singh and Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advs. for Appellant; Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Mukul Aryan and Mr. Kailash Golani, Advs. for Respondent
Case title: XXX v. YYY
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 654
Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025