Allahabad High Court: No Need To Consider Facts About First Husband While Deciding Application For Interim Maintenance

The Allahabad High Court has held that facts regarding first husband need not be considered while deciding Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed by Wife against an order of the Family Court dismissing her Application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena observed, "For purpose of adjudicating the appeal, it is not necessary for us to find on other facts regarding allegation of appellant that there was separation from her first husband and compromise confirming the separation prior to her association and marriage with respondent. This is because section 24 provides for a spouse to have maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Arun Kumar Tripathi while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Akash Chandra Maurya.

Facts of the Case

The Husband had filed the Petition in the Family Court to declare the marriage void on ground that it contravened clause (i) in section 5. It was during the pendency of the Husband's Petition that the Appellant had filed for maintenance. The Court found Appellant to have been guilty of concealment regarding previous marriage to cause doubt, due to which it was not appropriate to give maintenance amount under Section 24.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Husband had a long association with the wife and he cannot feign ignorance regarding knowing everything about her. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent relied on Supreme Court's decision in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur to submit that the direction for maintenance is in the discretion of the Court and the conduct of the party is a relevant factor.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, noted that the ground taken by the Respondent to urge void marriage is contravention of Clause (i) under Section 5 and thus there is no dispute that the Marriage was solemnized between the Parties.

It held that facts regarding first husband need not be considered while deciding the present Application for maintenance pendente lite.

"What is important is for the Court to ascertain whether the party seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses, requires it, as to be paid by the other party in a matrimonial dispute pending adjudication," the Court observed.

It further observed that even though the Family Court was convinced about concealment caused by Appellant, of her then, said to be, existing marital status as well as that she had represented to be working in the Income Tax Department, there is no finding against Appellant's contention that parties were together and did get married.

"It may well be that appellant had concealed and misled respondent about herself. It may also well be that respondent may find success in the matrimonial proceeding, to get a decree declaring the marriage void. However, there was no material on record before the Family Court to show that appellant had any means to support herself. Respondent did not produce any evidence to show appellant is working, let alone in the Income Tax department. As aforesaid, the learned Judge recorded in impugned judgment that appellant, after the marriage, came to Kanpur Nagar to reside with respondent," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Savita Devi vs. Jitendra Gautam (2025:AHC:93938-DB)

Click here to read/ download Order