In landmark ruling, appellate court emphasizes substantive justice over procedural formalities, directing husband to pay Rs. 15,000 monthly maintenance pending matrimonial appeal despite absence of formal application by wife.
Ranchi, September 18, 2026: The Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench) in a significant judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. Ankita Gupta has underscored the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding the financial sustenance of a financially distressed spouse during matrimonial litigation. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to grant maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance during proceedings) to the respondent-wife suo motu, even in the absence of any formal application by her.
The matter arose from an appeal filed by Sanjay Kumar against dismissal of his matrimonial suit by the Family Court. The wife, Ankita Gupta, had earlier secured an order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) directing the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance. However, the husband failed to comply with the order, accumulating arrears of Rs. 3,75,000, leaving the wife in dire financial straits.
The appellate court noted that the fundamental purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution of deserted spouses and ensure their basic sustenance. While the appellate court is not an executing forum under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it recognized its power under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to grant interim maintenance to enable the wife to sustain herself and effectively contest the appeal.
Crucially, the court highlighted that the absence of a formal application for maintenance pendente lite cannot fetter its jurisdiction. The bench emphasized that procedural technicalities must not override the principles of natural and substantial justice. The court referred to precedents including Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) and Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), reinforcing that maintenance pendente lite is a statutory right aimed at preventing economic hardship during litigation.
The judges observed that matrimonial litigation often places the economically weaker spouse at a disadvantage and the court's role is to level the playing field by ensuring financial support. The court invoked its suo motu powers to direct the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to the respondent-wife during the pendency of the appeal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
This decision reflects the judiciary's commitment to uphold fairness in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that financial distress does not impede a party's right to justice. The court clarified that the order will remain operative during the appeal and listed the matter for compliance verification.
Legal experts have lauded the judgment for its empathetic approach and adherence to the doctrine that justice must not be defeated by procedural lapses. The ruling serves as a precedent that appellate courts can and should intervene to provide interim relief to indigent spouses even in the absence of formal petitions, thereby promoting access to justice and preventing hardship.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 24 - Appellate Court in matrimonial appeal can grant maintenance pendente lite/ad interim maintenance to wife even suo motu and even in absence of formal application, where wife is in financial distress and husband has not paid maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Procedural technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 24, Section 25; Criminal Procedure Code Section 125; Family Courts Act, 1984
Sanjay Kumar v. Ankita Gupta, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004066
