Chhattisgarh HC rules Family Court cannot dismiss divorce plea for non-payment of interim maintenance, can only stay proceedings

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 126 | 2026:CGHC:47-DB

January 02, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside a Family Court order that terminated a husband’s divorce petition for failure to pay interim maintenance, ruling that while proceedings can be stayed for non-compliance, they cannot be dismissed outright.

In Santosh v. Roshani (FA(MAT) No. 109 of 2025), decided on January 2, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held that the Family Court exceeded its inherent powers by terminating the matrimonial proceedings instead of merely staying them.

The case arose from a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on grounds including cruelty. During the pendency of the case, the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month towards litigation expenses and later an additional Rs. 1,500 per month for maintenance of the couple’s minor daughter under Section 24 of the Act.

Although the husband deposited Rs. 12,000 in partial compliance, arrears reportedly rose to Rs. 88,000. The wife sought a stay of proceedings until payment was made. However, instead of granting a stay, the Family Court terminated the entire divorce proceeding on February 3, 2025.

Challenging this order, the husband argued that the court could have stayed the matter but had no authority to dismiss it entirely. An amicus curiae appointed in the case supported this view, relying on earlier precedent.

The High Court examined the scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. It referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhuneshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai, which clarified that courts may stay matrimonial proceedings for non-payment of interim maintenance in exercise of inherent powers, but the provision does not justify terminating the case itself.

The Bench also noted that this principle was recently followed by the Kerala High Court in Maximus Fernandez v. Olga Fernandez. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoharlal Chopra v. Raja Seth Hiralal, the court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code are meant to advance justice, not cause prejudice.

Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court directed that the divorce proceedings be stayed until the husband clears the arrears of maintenance. Once the amount is deposited, the Family Court has been instructed to resume the case in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of without costs, and the court recorded appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae.

Case Reference : FA(MAT) No. 109 of 2025, Santosh v. Roshani; for the Appellant: Mr. U.R. Koshale, Advocate; for the Respondent: None (though served); Amicus Curiae: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate.