The Delhi High Court has ruled that interim maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) does not automatically end once a Family Court passes a divorce decree. The Court held that such maintenance can continue during the pendency of an appeal because an appeal is a continuation of the original matrimonial proceedings.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from matrimonial proceedings between the parties, whose identities were withheld by the Court. The marriage was solemnised in December 2012, and the couple had been living separately since May 2015. During the divorce proceedings, the Family Court had directed the respondent, an Indian Army officer, to pay the appellant interim maintenance amounting to 30% of his gross salary after statutory deductions. That order had earlier been upheld by the Delhi High Court.
After the Family Court granted a decree of divorce on July 19, 2025, the appellant challenged the decree before the High Court. She also sought continuation of the interim maintenance during the pendency of the appeal, relying on liberty granted by the Supreme Court to press the issue before the High Court.
Court's Observation
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined whether maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could continue after a divorce decree when the appeal against that decree remained pending.
Rejecting the respondent's objection, the Court observed that an appeal is legally a continuation of the original proceedings. Therefore, the expression "during the proceeding" in Section 24 cannot be confined only to proceedings before the Family Court.
The Bench observed,
"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 Court relied on earlier Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi and Hansaben v. Ashwinkumar Kacharabhai Patel, to hold that appellate courts also possess jurisdiction to grant or continue interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA.
Addressing the respondent's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, the Bench clarified that the judgment dealt with the distinction between Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA but did not decide whether interim maintenance under Section 24 ceases during the pendency of an appeal.
The Court also rejected the argument that the appellant was capable of maintaining herself merely because she held an MBA degree. Referring to settled law, it noted that the ability to earn is different from actual earning and that the issue had already been decided while granting interim maintenance earlier.
Decision
Allowing the application, the Delhi High Court directed that the respondent shall continue paying interim maintenance to the appellant at the rate of 30% of his current gross salary after minimum statutory deductions. The respondent's employer was directed to deduct the amount and remit it directly to the appellant with effect from August 25, 2025, the date on which the application seeking continuation of maintenance was filed, until the appeal is finally decided or until further orders of the Court.
The Bench clarified that the appellant's separate application for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court would remain unaffected and would be decided independently.
Case Details:
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 306/2025
Judge: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar
Decision Date: July 14, 2026
