Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamli vs Rakesh Gurjar (2025:Rj-Jd:53207) on 8 December, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:53207]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17793/2025
Kamli W/o Rakesh D/o Sundaram, Aged About 30 Years, Liliya,
Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Gurjar S/o Ram Lal Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years, Koliyo
Ki Dhani, Riyanshyamdas, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Sandu.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Joshi.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 08/12/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"a) Direct that the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annex.6) be quashed and set aside,
b) Direct that the proceedings in Case No. 275/2024 filed. by the Respondent under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Family Court, Merta be decided only after deciding the Case No. 17/2025 filed by the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Learned Family Court, Merta,
c) Grant such further relief(s) which in the facts and circumstances of this case may do complete justice to the petitioner; and
d) Costs of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the Respondent were married as per Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, whereupon the Respondent filed an application for divorce on 29.11.2024, being Case No.275/2024 before the Learned Family Court, Merta ("Trial Court") under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (2 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act of 1955"), based on false and misrepresented facts. The Petitioner filed her detailed reply (Annex.1) denying the allegations.
2.1. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, being Case No.17/2025 before the Learned Trial Court, seeking maintenance pendente lite as she is a poor and illiterate woman with no independent means of livelihood. Her parents are ailing, and she has no siblings to support her, leaving her dependent on interim maintenance for sustenance and to participate effectively in the trial proceedings. 2.2. Later, the Petitioner realized that due to a clerical error, the aforesaid application mentioned a total maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- instead of monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. Consequently, she filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking to amend the said error, which was opposed by the Respondent. 2.3. On 07.08.2025 (Annex.2), the Learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the Petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, observing that the amendment would not alter the nature of the petition or cause any prejudice to the Respondent.
2.4. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15874/2025 before this Court challenging the said order dated 07.08.2025. On 21.08.2025 (Annex.3), this Court passed an order directing issuance of notice and staying the operation of the order dated 07.08.2025 (Annex.8 in that petition).
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (3 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] 2.5. In compliance with the said order dated 21.08.2025, the Learned Trial Court stayed the proceedings in the Petitioner's application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. However, the divorce proceedings initiated by the Respondent continued, thereby defeating the very object of granting interim maintenance to the Petitioner.
2.6. Consequently, the Petitioner, on 26.08.2025 (Annex.4), filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the Learned Trial Court seeking stay of proceedings in Case No.275/2024 (divorce petition) in pursuance of this Court's order dated 21.08.2025, as both proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia)(ib) and 24 of the Act of 1955 are interlinked.
2.7. The Respondent, on the same day i.e. 26.08.2025, filed his reply (Annex.5) opposing the said application and contending that proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act of 1955 are independent of those under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. 2.8. Thereafter, on 04.09.2025 (Annex.6), the Learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dismissing the Petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC on the ground that Section 24 proceedings are interim in nature and distinct from Section 13 proceedings, observing further that the divorce case is a "target case." 2.9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annex.6), the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial Court completely failed to appreciate that the respondent had preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15874/2025 before this Court only with the mala fide intent to evade his lawful duty to maintain the petitioner and to delay the adjudication of the application filed (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (4 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act of 1955").
3.1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court erred by staying only the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 while allowing the divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the same Act to continue. He submits that such an approach defeats the very purpose of Section 24, which is to secure subsistence and ensure the effective participation of a financially dependent spouse in matrimonial litigation. 3.2. He further submits that by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner stands deprived of her statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, even as litigation expenses continue to accumulate; thereby, causing grave injustice. He also submits that the intent of the legislature behind enacting Section 24 was precisely to prevent such hardship to a dependent spouse.
3.3. He further submits that maintenance is a form of social and legal justice, a means to protect those unable to sustain themselves and the petitioner, being a poor, uneducated woman with ailing parents and no siblings, is wholly dependent on the respondent, who is employed as a Constable earning Rs.70,000- 80,000/- per month along with agricultural income. Denial of maintenance, in such circumstances, amounts to deprivation of her lawful right and causes irreparable hardship. 3.4. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court erred grievously in holding that proceedings under Sections 24 and 13 of the Act of 1955 are independent. Both provisions arise from the same lis and are intrinsically (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (5 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] connected. The purpose of Section 24 is to ensure that an indigent spouse is not left without a remedy during the pendency of Section 13 proceedings. Continuing divorce proceedings without securing maintenance under Section 24 renders that provision meaningless.
Counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court be quashed and set aside, and that appropriate directions be issued to secure the petitioner's statutory and equitable entitlement to maintenance.
4. Counsel representing the respondent chooses not to file reply to the writ petition and submits that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act of 1955") constitute the main proceedings; whereas, the application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is only ancillary in nature and limited to the question of interim maintenance. He submits that the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15874/2025, pertains solely to the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, consequent upon the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Learned Trial Court in respect of the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 4.1 Counsel for the respondent further submits that the said order of stay has no bearing upon the main divorce case filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act of 1955, as this Court did not stay or make any reference to the divorce proceedings themselves and therefore, the learned Family Court rightly proceeded with the main case, holding that the order of stay (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (6 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] granted by this Court, cannot automatically suspend proceedings in the principal petition.
4.2 He further submits that the respondent-husband has already approached this Court in good faith to challenge the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2025 passed in the application filed under Section 24 and has no intent to delay the matter or evade his legal obligations and thus, the petitioner's plea that: the proceedings in Case No.275/2024 filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Merta, be decided only after deciding the Case No.17/2025, is entirely misconceived, as both proceedings are distinct in nature and scope and the pendency of the maintenance matter does not preclude the continuation of the main petition. 4.3 He further submits that the learned Family Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of the main case, as the same was devoid of merit. He submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the facts and law and warrants no interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act of 1955"), seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, remains pending before the learned Family Court, Merta; whereas the divorce proceedings under (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (7 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act are being actively prosecuted by the respondent.
7. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the proceedings under Sections 13 and 24 of the Act of 1955 are intrinsically interlinked and cannot be segregated in a manner that undermines the statutory right of maintenance provided to a financially dependent spouse. The object of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to ensure that a party, who lacks sufficient means, is not rendered incapable of effectively participating in matrimonial proceedings. Section 24 of the Act of 1955, is reproduced hereunder:-
"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.
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur: 2025 INSC 197, has elaborated the scope of Section 24 the Act of 1955 and the prerequisites for invoking it in pending matrimonial proceedings. The relevant extract reads as follows:-
"27. Section 24 confers a power on a matrimonial Court to grant interim maintenance in pending proceedings seeking a decree contemplated under the 1955 Act. The power is to be (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (8 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] exercised pending the proceedings for a grant of a decree under Sections 9 to 13 of the 1955 Act. The conditions for applicability of Section 24 are:
(i) There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending and
(ii) the court must come to a conclusion 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."
10. This Court also draws guidance from decision of the Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7627, wherein detailed and comprehensive directions were laid down governing the disposal of applications for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court categorically emphasized that applications under Section 24 must be decided with utmost expedition, failing which the very object and legislative intent behind the provision would stand defeated. It was further held that where the disposal of such applications is delayed and such delay results in hardship to the claimant spouse, the Court ought to grant ad-interim maintenance on the basis of the admitted income of the respondent, so as to ensure immediate financial relief and prevent undue hardship. The relevant para reads as under:-
"xxxxx
69. The application under Section 24 should be decided as expeditiously as possible otherwise the very object of the proviso to Section 24 would be defeated.
70. If the disposal of maintenance application is taking time, and the delay is causing hardship, some ad-interim maintenance should be granted to the claimant spouse on the basis of admitted income of the respondent.
71. There may be cases where one of the spouse has sufficient means of sustenance and therefore, the application under Section 24 is not warranted at the initial stage. In such cases, the concerned spouse need not file the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but shall specifically mention this fact in the pleadings i.e. petition/written (Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (9 of 10) [CW-17793/2025] statement as the case may be. In such cases, the written statement be filed by the respondent within 30 days of the service of summons. However, this would not preclude the filing of the application under Section 24 at a later stage if the circumstances so warrant.
xxxxx"
11. This Court finds that the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The proceedings under Sections 13 and 24 are legally and functionally interconnected, and adjudication of the claim for interim maintenance cannot be deferred or ignored in a manner that renders the statutory protection nugatory. Section 24 is a remedial provision intended to ensure that a financially dependent spouse is not deprived of the means to effectively pursue or defend matrimonial proceedings. Any approach that allows the main petition to progress without first securing the dependent spouse's subsistence runs contrary to the legislative mandate and undermines the very efficacy of the provision.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh (Supra) has reaffirmed that the power under Section 24 is to be exercised in all pending proceedings under the Act, subject to the satisfaction that a spouse lacks independent income sufficient for support. Likewise, the Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma (Supra) has stressed the need for expeditious disposal of applications under Section 24, and where delay is unavoidable, the necessity of granting ad-interim maintenance to prevent hardship. In the present case, the Learned Trial Court's refusal to consider the Petitioner's claim for interim maintenance at the appropriate stage has resulted in frustration of the statutory purpose underlying Section 24 and has caused undue prejudice to the Petitioner.
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53207] (10 of 10) [CW-17793/2025]
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annex.6) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.09.2025 (Annex.6) passed by the Learned Family Court, Merta, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Learned Family Court, Merta is directed to first decide Case No. 17/2025, filed by the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and thereafter proceed with Case No. 275/2024 filed by the Respondent under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act.
14. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 74-Sumit/-
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:02:44 PM) (Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 08:55:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)