Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 18 March, 2026
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
FAO-1253-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1253-2021
Reserved on : 06.02.2026
Date of Decision: 18.03.2026
Ashish Poonia
... Appellant
V/S
Nilima Chaudhary and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka,
Mr. Deepak Goyat and Mr. Gandharv Malhotra, Advocates
for respondent No.1.
***
RAMESH KUMARI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') against impugned order dated 31.08.2021, wherein learned Family Court, Hisar, has awarded Rs.49,500/- per month to the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') as maintenance pendente lite.
2. Learned counsel for the husband submitted that divorce petition filed by the husband had been allowed and the marriage between the parties to the petition has since been dissolved on the ground of cruelty committed by the wife. Once the divorce is on the ground of cruelty on part of the wife, she is not entitled to permanent or ad interim alimony. Moreover, she is guilty of submission of false affidavit concealing her salary. She was POOJA SAINI 2026.03.18 17:04 working as Teacher and getting salary of Rs.37,000/- per month, though I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment FAO-1253-2021 -2- subsequently, she could not qualify TTE and had to leave her job. For filing false affidavit by the wife, the husband has already approached the Army authorities. He further contended that learned trial Court did not call for the affidavit regarding assets and liabilities of the parties in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh Versus Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Learned counsel for the husband also relied upon the judgment Amandeep Singh Versus Sobhanjit Kaur, FAO-M-197-2018, decided on 26.07.2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the wife contended that Family Court has fixed ad interim maintenance of Rs.49,500/- per month taking into consideration the employment of the husband. It has been submitted that the army authorities, even while noticing the income of wife to be Rs.35,000/- per month awarded maintenance to wife @ 22% of the gross salary of the husband. The wife had drawn same percentage of ad interim maintenance from the salary of the husband in divorce proceedings. He further contended that although at the time of passing the impugned order, the wife was serving as primary teacher in Army Public School at Hisar on contractual basis but w.e.f. 04.04.2024, her services had been dispensed with on account of non-passing/clearance of the CTET/HTET examinations and consequently, she is without job and her financial condition is worse and under these circumstances has a right to file petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'HMA') and right to get ad interim maintenance also during the pendency of the petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. POOJA SAINI 2026.03.18 17:04 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment FAO-1253-2021 -3-
4. Undisputedly, the marriage of the parties to the appeal has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh's case (supra) provided a comprehensive and elaborate framework necessary for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with special emphasis on permanent alimony.
6. In the present case, the decree of divorce in favour of the husband had attained finality. A divorcee wife can pray for grant of permanent alimony and maintenance either at the time of passing of decree or any time subsequent thereto under Section 25(1) of the HMA, which reads as under:-
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent."
7. Thus Section 25 of the HMA itself provides that either husband or wife POOJA SAINI 2026.03.18 17:04 I attest the integrity and can initiate proceedings for grant of permanent alimony even after decree accuracy of this order/judgment FAO-1253-2021 -4- of divorce. The Court does not become functus officio with the passing of decree and continues to have jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter.
8. Under Section 24 of the HMA, either wife or husband are entitled for grant of ad interim maintenance. Section 24 of HMA reads as under:-
"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 petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."
9. A spouse whose marriage is declared null and void can also apply for grant of permanent alimony or maintenance as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh Versus Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 wherein it is held as under :-
"a. A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case POOJA SAINI 2026.03.18 17:04 I attest the integrity and and the conduct of the parties. The grant of accuracy of this order/judgment FAO-1253-2021 -5- relief under Section 25 is always discretionary;
and
b. Even if a court comes to a prima facie
conclusion that the marriage between the
parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary"
10. Right of the wife against whom decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is passed is recognized by Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V. Leelavathi Versus Dr. C.R. Swamy @ Dr. C.R. Kumara Swamy, 2025 INSC 994. In this case, the petition was filed by husband under Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty. The wife filed counter-claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Family Court allowed the divorce petition and dismissed the counter-claim of the wife and also granted Rs.15 Lacs as permanent alimony to the wife. The wife filed appeal for setting aside of divorce decree and another appeal against dismissal of counter-claim. The husband filed appeal challenging the quantum of alimony. The High Court dismissed all the three appeals and upheld grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and further held that husband, a doctor by profession and wife, a qualified engineer and practising as an Advocate, were both POOJA SAINI 2026.03.18 17:04 capable individuals, alimony of Rs.15 Lacs awarded by the Family Court I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment FAO-1253-2021 -6- was found appropriate. The wife preferred appeal. Hon'ble Apex Court enhanced the permanent alimony to Rs.50 Lacs as a one time settlement. The instalments for payment was also fixed.
11. Since in M.V. Leelavathi's case (supra) permanent alimony was granted to wife against whom decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty was passed by the Family Court, therefore, the contention of a husband that wife against whom decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is obtained is not entitled for maintenance, cannot be accepted and the judgment in Amandeep Singh's case (supra) is not applicable.
12. It is admitted fact that the wife was getting interim maintenance @ 22% of the salary of husband from the department of the husband during the divorce proceedings. Undisputedly, the husband was getting salary of Rs.2.25 Lacs at the time of passing of the impugned order and the learned trial Court has not enhanced the interim maintenance to the wife and allowed her the same percentage of amount from the salary of the husband, which she was getting in divorce proceedings i.e. 22% of Rs.2.25 Lacs that comes to Rs.49,500/-. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the wife was getting salary of Rs.37,000/- as Teacher in Army Public School, Hisar, the total amount comes to Rs.86,500/-, whereas, even after paying 22% from his salary, the remaining salary of husband is Rs.1,75,000/-. The wife is entitled to maintenance reflective of the standard of living enjoyed during marriage and commensurate with cost of living and financial disclosure of the husband, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakhi Sadhukhan Versus Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 INSC 789.
POOJA SAINI 2026.03.18 17:04 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment FAO-1253-2021 -7-
13. Learned Family Court was not required to get affidavits regarding the assets and liabilities of the wife before passing the impugned order because her inability to maintain herself during the pendency of proceedings under Section 25 of the HMA was already legally proved, since, she was getting ad interim maintenance @ 22% of the salary of the husband during the pendency of the petition for divorce instituted by the husband.
14. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal in hand is hereby dismissed.
15. Order dated 28.09.2021 vide which there was interim stay of payment of alimony to the extent of 50% stands vacated.
16. Any observation while deciding this appeal shall have no bearing on the merits of the case under Section 25 of HMA pending before the Family Court.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) ( RAMESH KUMARI )
JUDGE JUDGE
18.03.2026
pooja saini
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
POOJA SAINI
2026.03.18 17:04
I attest the integrity and
accuracy of this order/judgment