Non-payment of interim maintenance cannot ordinarily stall matrimonial proceedings; arrears remain recoverable through execution.

The petitioner-husband had instituted a divorce proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

At the wife’s request, the Family Court directed that the proceeding remain stayed until the husband paid arrears of interim maintenance of ₹1,20,000.

The husband challenged that order, contending that an earlier application for the same relief had been rejected by the Family Court on 18 September 2025 and that the rejection had been affirmed by the High Court.

The earlier order had declined to stay the divorce proceeding, reasoning that the case should proceed to a speedy conclusion and that the maintenance arrears could be addressed separately.

The High Court heard the writ petition at the admission stage without notice to the wife.

Whether the Family Court could, without identifying changed circumstances or giving cogent reasons, allow a subsequent application for the same relief and stay the divorce proceeding for non-payment of maintenance arrears.

Whether non-payment of interim maintenance warrants staying a matrimonial proceeding, or whether the arrears should instead be recovered through execution or other appropriate proceedings.

Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, interim maintenance is payable during the matrimonial proceeding.

The Court held that non-payment of maintenance ordinarily should not, by itself, result in the matrimonial proceeding being stayed or dismissed; unpaid arrears remain recoverable after disposal of that proceeding.

Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court identified statutory routes for enforcement, including Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable.

It also referred to Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822, concerning the striking off of a respondent’s defence for non-payment of maintenance in appropriate circumstances.

The subsequent application sought relief identical to that refused in the Family Court’s order of 18 September 2025. The High Court found no changed circumstances or cogent reason justifying the Family Court’s departure from its earlier decision.

It also considered that staying the divorce proceeding would impede its disposal, while leaving the wife’s maintenance claim without a remedy was unnecessary because the arrears could be recovered through execution or other proceedings recognised in Rajnesh.

The stay was therefore unsustainable, but setting it aside did not extinguish the husband’s liability to pay either accrued or ongoing maintenance.

It permitted the husband to pay the accrued arrears—stated to be ₹1,50,000 at the hearing—in instalments within six months, in addition to paying current maintenance as directed by the Family Court.

The wife remained at liberty to initiate execution or recovery proceedings in accordance with law if payment was not made.