REDACTED vs REDACTED

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 29.04.2026
Pronounced on: 14.07.2026

+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025
XXX .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh and Ms.
Nidhi Tiwari, Advs.

versus

YYY .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr.
Mukul Aryan and Mr. Kailash
Golani, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T


CM APPL. 53180/2025
1. The present application has been filed by the Appellant/Wife
under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (“CPC”)
seeking continuation of interim maintenance, awarded to her during
the pendency of the divorce petition, by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (“Family Court”) vide
order dated 12.01.2024 (“Maintenance Order”), during the pendency
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 1 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

of the captioned appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984. The present application is being considered pursuant to the
liberty expressly granted by the Supreme Court of India vide order
dated 08.01.2026 in SLP (C) No. 34613/2025.
2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 10.12.2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi
Cantonment, New Delhi. The Respondent is a serving officer in the
Indian Army, while the Appellant is an MBA (HR) graduate.
Differences arose between the parties and they have been living
separately since 22.05.2015. No child was born out of the said
wedlock. The Respondent thereafter instituted a petition under Section
13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) seeking
dissolution of marriage.
3. During the pendency of the said matrimonial proceedings, the
Appellant moved an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking
grant of interim maintenance. By order dated 12.01.2024, the learned
Family Court directed the Respondent’s employer to deduct 30% of
his gross salary, after statutory deductions, and remit the same to the
Appellant towards monthly maintenance with effect from 18.05.2022,
being the date of filing of the application. While determining the
quantum, the learned Family Court followed the principle laid down
by this Court in Babita Bisht v. Dharmender Singh Bisht , 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 8775 . The said order was assailed in appeal by the
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 2 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

Respondent; however, the said appeal came to be dismissed by this
Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed in MAT.APP.(F.C.)
91/2024. Consequently, the order granting interim maintenance
attained finality.
4. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 19.07.2025, allowed the Respondent’s
petition seeking dissolution of marriage. Aggrieved thereby, the
Appellant has preferred the captioned appeal. Along with the appeal,
she has also filed the present application seeking continuation of the
interim maintenance granted by virtue of the order dated 12.01.2024.
Though notice in the appeal was issued on 26.08.2025, no order was
passed in respect of the prayer seeking continuation of interim
maintenance.
5. Subsequent thereto, the Appellant approached the Supreme
Court of India by filing SLP (C) No. 34613/2025. By order dated
08.01.2026, the Supreme Court observed that, in matrimonial matters,
issuance of notice would sufficiently safeguard the interests of the
parties and that non-grant of stay would not, by itself, result in any
adverse consequence. Insofar as the prayer for grant of interim
maintenance was concerned, liberty was granted to the Appellant to
urge the same before this Court, with a direction that the application
be considered after hearing the Respondent. Accordingly, the present
application is being considered.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 3 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant
has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon
her parents for her day-to-day needs. It was submitted that the
Respondent is a well salaried Army officer and is under a legal and
moral obligation to maintain his wife during the pendency of the
proceedings. It was urged that an appeal under Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act is not a fresh proceeding but a continuation of the
original matrimonial proceedings, and therefore maintenance granted
under Section 24 HMA, which operates “during the proceeding ”,
must necessarily continue during the pendency of the preferred appeal.
7. It was further submitted that the application under Section 24 of
the HMA filed by the Appellant had been duly examined by the
learned Family Court and a considered order was passed on
12.01.2024 granting maintenance amounting to 30% of the gross
salary of the Respondent, which was affirmed by this Court in appeal.
The said entitlement subsists during the pendency of the present
appeal and must be given effect to. It was also submitted that the
present application is being pressed pursuant to the specific liberty
granted by the Supreme Court and this Court is therefore bound to
consider and pass appropriate orders on the prayer for maintenance.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the application
and submits that Section 24 of the HMA expressly limits the grant of
maintenance to the period “during the proceeding” and that the word
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 4 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

“proceeding” contemplated therein refers only to the proceedings
before the Trial/Family Court, which stood concluded upon passing of
the decree. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299
wherein it was held that Section 24 of the HMA operates only during
the pendency of matrimonial proceedings before the Court of first
instance and that the appropriate post decree remedy lies under
Section 25 of the HMA.
9. It was further contended that the Appellant is a qualified MBA
(HR) professional with prior employment experience and is fully
capable of maintaining herself. It was also submitted that the amounts
received by the Appellant under the maintenance order were
transferred to accounts of her father and her sister, thereby indicating
absence of genuine financial hardship. Furthermore, an application
filed by the Appellant under Section 25 of the HMA is still pending
before the learned Family Court, which constitutes the appropriate
remedy for post decree maintenance.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined
the material placed on record.
11. The sole question that arises for determination in the present
application is whether the interim maintenance granted to the
Appellant under Section 24 of the HMA vide order dated 12.01.2024
can be directed to continue during the pendency of the present appeal
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 5 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

before this Court.
12. Before adverting to the merits of the present case, it is
appropriate to take note of Section 24 of the HMA, which reads as
under:
“Sec. 24 - Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
proceedings. - Where in any proceeding under this Act it
appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as
the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for
her or his support and the necessary expenses of the
proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the
husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the
expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the
proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners
own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem
to the court to be reasonable.”
13. Section 24 provides that in any proceeding under the HMA, the
Court may order the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioner
“monthly during the proceeding” where the petitioner has no
independent income sufficient for their support. The operative phrase
is “during the proceeding”. The question is whether an appeal filed
under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act constitutes a “proceeding”
within the meaning of Section 24 of the HMA, or whether the
“proceeding” referred to in Section 24 is confined to the proceeding
before the Trial/Family Court.
14. It is a settled principle of procedural law that an appeal is not an
independent or fresh proceeding, but a continuation of the original
proceeding. This principle has been consistently affirmed by the
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 6 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

Supreme Court and various High Courts. In Jagdish Singh v.
Madhuri Devi , (2008) 10 SCC 497, Supreme Court reiterated that an

appeal is a continuation of the suit.
15. This view has been consistently followed by various High
Courts. In Hansaben v. Ashwinkumar Kacharabhai Patel , 2014 SCC
OnLine Guj 15560 , a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that
an appeal under the HMA is a continuation of the original matrimonial
proceedings. Consequently, proceedings in appeal also fall within the
expression “any proceedings under this Act” under Section 24 of the
HMA. The Court clarified that although the appeal is filed under the
procedural framework of the CPC, the substantive right of appeal
arises from the HMA itself. Therefore, the Appellate Court has
jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance and litigation expenses under
Section 24 during the pendency of the appeal. The relevant para is
extracted below:
“9. We would firstly deal with the question of
maintainability of this application, which has two
parameters. First is, would this application be
maintainable at an appellate stage when no such
application was filed before the Family Court? Second
aspect would be when order under section 25 of the Act
has been passed, can any higher amount be awarded as
interim maintenance under section 24 of the Act?
...
15. In the case of Jalsutram Annapurnamma v.
Jalasutram Ramakrishna Sastry, [AIR 1959 AP 49.]
Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court while
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 7 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

interpreting the term “any proceedings under this Act”
held that the same would also give power to the Appellate
Court to grant interim relief under section 24. Referring
to section 24 of the Act, it was observed as under:
“The object of the section is to enable the
husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has
no independent income, to provide the other, so
that the proceedings may be conducted and she
or he may be maintained during the pendency of
the proceedings. But the learned Counsel
contends that the word „proceeding‟ in section 24
must be confined to the original proceeding on
the ground that the original proceeding is the one
under the Act, whereas an appeal against the
order in that proceeding is one under the Civil
Procedure Code. In support of this contention,
reliance is placed upon the provisions of section
28. The said section reads:
“All decrees and orders made by the Court in any
proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in
like manner as the decrees ana orders of the
Court made in the exercise of the original civil
jurisdiction are enforced, and may be appealed
from under any law for the time being in force:
xxx xxx xxx
It is true that section 28 confers a right of appeal
by reference to any law: But nonetheless, but for
section 28, the aggrieved party cannot have a
right of appeal against an order of dissolution of
marriage or other orders under the Act. The right
of appeal is one conferred under the Act and,
therefore, it is a proceeding under the Act. That
apart, any proceeding under the Act is a
proceeding in respect of a right conferred under
the Act.
That proceeding starts in the original Court and
continues till it is disposed of by the Appellate
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 8 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

Court. It is a commonplace that an appeal is a
continuation of the original proceeding. The
fact that an appeal lies under the Civil
Procedure Code against an order in a
proceeding under the Act, will not make the
appeal anytheless a proceeding under the Act,
for, the appeal also relates to the adjudication in
respect of the rights conferred under the Act.
In whatever way the problem is approached, it is
manifest that the appeal against an order in a
proceeding under the Act is a proceeding under
the Act. In this view, we hold that the Appellate
Court has jurisdiction to make an interim order
in terms of section 24 of the Act.”
16. The ground of maintainability raised by the
respondent thus fails.”
Emphasis Supplied

16. We are in full agreement with the aforesaid view. The Appellate
Court has jurisdiction under Section 24 of the HMA to grant interim
maintenance and litigation expenses during the pendency of the
preferred appeal. 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. 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.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 9 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

17. The Respondent places reliance on the case of Sukhdev Singh
for the proposition that Section 24 of the HMA ceases to operate upon
the passing of the decree and that Section 25 of the HMA is the
appropriate remedy thereafter. This Court has carefully considered the
said judgment. The said decision draws a clear distinction between
Section 24 and Section 25 of the HMA, holding that Section 25 is
available at the time of and subsequent to the passing of a decree i.e.
at the stage of final adjudication. However, the specific question that
arises in the present proceedings is, whether the maintenance awarded
under Section 24 continues during the pendency of an appeal against
the decree, i.e., at the stage of interim adjudication, the appeal being a
continuation of the original proceeding which was not the subject
matter of the said decision. The said judgment cannot, therefore, be
read as a categorical bar to continuation of maintenance granted under
Section 24 by the Trial/Family Court, at the appellate stage. This
Court is of the view that so long as the appeal is pending and the
original proceeding has not attained finality, Section 24 of the HMA
remains applicable.
18. On the contention raised by the Respondent that the Appellant
is qualified and capable of employment, this Court is guided by the
well settled position laid down by the Supreme Court in Shallja v.
Khobanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 that a mere capability to earn cannot
be a reason to deny maintenance to a spouse who is not actually
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 10 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

earning. The distinction between capability and actual earning is
fundamental. This very argument was raised and rejected by the
learned Family Court in the order dated 12.01.2024, which examined
the income affidavit, ITRs, and bank statements of the Appellant. The
order dated 12.01.2024 was thereafter affirmed by this Court vide
order dated 21.03.2024 passed in MAT.APP.(FC) 91/2024. It has
attained finality between the parties on the question of employability
of the Appellant and financial need. The Respondent, therefore,
cannot be permitted to re-agitate a question that has already been
conclusively decided inter se the parties.
19. As regards the contention that amounts received by the
Appellant were transferred to accounts of her father and her sister, the
order dated 12.01.2024 has already addressed this argument. The
learned Family Court found that these transfers represented an internal
family arrangement, as the father and siblings were bearing her day-
to-day expenses. This cannot lead to the inference that the Appellant
does not require maintenance. The Respondent had the opportunity to
challenge this finding in appeal against order passed under Section 24
of the HMA before this Court; the order having been upheld, the same
contention cannot be reheard in the present application.
20. 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
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 11 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

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.
21. In view of the above discussion, the present application is
allowed. The Respondent shall continue to pay maintenance to the
Appellant at the rate of 30% of his current gross salary after deducting
minimum statutory deductions. Directions be issued to employer of
the Respondent to deduct the said amount and remit the said amount
directly to the Appellant towards interim maintenance with effect from
the date of filing of application under Section 151 of the CPC along
with the present appeal i.e. 25.08.2025 in the same manner as directed
vide the order dated 12.01.2024, until the final disposal of MAT. APP.
(F.C.) No. 306/2025 or until further orders of this Court, whichever is
earlier.
22. It is clarified that the pending application filed by the Appellant
under Section 25 of the HMA before the learned Family Court is left
unaffected and may be pursued independently.
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 12 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08

23. Needless to state, all observations made herein are for the
limited purpose of deciding the present application and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal.



VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.


RENU BHATNAGAR, J.
neha/mm
JULY 14, 2026/
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025 Page 13 of 13
Signed By:BABINDER
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:14.07.2026
16:09:08