The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a wife is entitled to seek interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even when maintenance is already being paid under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court set aside a lower court order that dismissed the application on the erroneous ground that no provision exists for interim relief under Section 18, emphasizing that procedural missteps do not defeat substantive rights.
The Verdict
The petitioner, a wife seeking interim maintenance for medical treatment, won. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, permits courts to grant interim maintenance, irrespective of existing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh within one month, taking into account the wife’s medical needs and the parties’ financial positions.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Smt. Archana @ Pinki, was granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 under Section 125 CrPC in proceedings concluded in April 2025. Subsequently, she developed a medical condition requiring surgical intervention, estimated to cost Rs. 5,000. She filed an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking interim maintenance to cover these expenses. To support this application, she invoked Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers courts to grant relief in the interest of justice.
The Additional District Judge, Tarana, dismissed the application, misreading it as an attempt to enhance the existing Section 125 maintenance. The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that Section 18 provides an independent statutory basis for maintenance claims and that interim relief is permissible under it.
The respondent opposed the petition, contending that Section 18 does not expressly provide for interim maintenance and that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to create such a remedy where none exists in the substantive law.
The Legal Issue
Can a wife seek interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even when maintenance is already being paid under Section 125 of the CrPC? And can a court invoke Section 151 of the CPC to grant such interim relief when the application is mislabeled or misprocedured?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, imposes a statutory duty on the husband to maintain his wife, and that this duty includes the power to grant interim relief pending final adjudication. She relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Savitri Bai v. Govind Singh Rawat, which affirmed that courts have inherent power to grant interim maintenance where a substantive right to maintenance exists. She further contended that the lower court erred in treating the application as one for enhancement under Section 125 CrPC, when it was clearly filed under Section 18 for medical expenses. The invocation of Section 151 CPC was merely procedural and should not have led to dismissal.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel argued that Section 18 of the Act of 1956 is a provision for permanent or final maintenance and contains no express provision for interim relief. He contended that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to circumvent the absence of such a provision in the substantive law, citing the Supreme Court’s observation in MY Palace Mutual Aided Co-operative Society v. B. Mahesh that procedural tools cannot substitute for statutory mandates. He maintained that the petitioner’s remedy, if dissatisfied with the Section 125 amount, was to seek enhancement under that provision, not to file a parallel claim.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court rejected the respondent’s narrow interpretation of Section 18. It held that the existence of a substantive right to maintenance under Section 18 necessarily implies the power to grant interim relief to preserve that right. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Savitri Bai v. Govind Singh Rawat, which explicitly recognized that courts have the authority to grant interim maintenance under Section 18, even if the statute does not use the word "interim." The Court emphasized that the power to grant interim relief flows from the inherent jurisdiction of civil courts to ensure justice is not defeated by technicalities.
"Where there is a provision for maintenance, certainly the Court has power to grant interim maintenance."
The Court further held that the lower court’s dismissal on the ground that the application was misfiled under Section 151 CPC was legally unsustainable. It reiterated that courts must look beyond the label of an application and examine the substance of the claim. Even if the wrong provision is cited, the relief sought must be granted if it is legally available under another provision.
The Court also directed the trial court to consider the financial positions of both parties, referencing Rajnesh v. Neha, which permits courts to seek affidavits of assets and liabilities to determine appropriate maintenance. Importantly, the Court clarified that the existence of Section 125 CrPC maintenance does not bar a parallel claim under Section 18, as the two remedies serve different purposes and operate under different statutory frameworks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in matrimonial maintenance litigation. Practitioners can now confidently file applications for interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even when Section 125 CrPC maintenance is in place. The ruling affirms that these are distinct remedies: Section 125 is summary and limited, while Section 18 is substantive and comprehensive.
The decision also reinforces the principle that procedural errors - such as citing the wrong provision or mislabeling an application - cannot be grounds for dismissal if the underlying claim is legally valid. Lawyers should now draft applications with greater precision but need not fear dismissal for technical missteps, provided the substance of the claim is sound.
This precedent will be particularly useful in cases involving sudden medical emergencies, educational expenses, or other urgent needs of wives seeking maintenance. Courts are now bound to examine the nature of the relief sought, not the form in which it is presented. However, the ruling does not permit double recovery; any interim maintenance granted under Section 18 must be adjusted against the Section 125 amount in the final order.
