Smt. Asha and others v. Hanumant Lal) arising out of the order dated

2022 (Smt. Asha and others vs. Hanumant Lal) arising out of the order dated

31.08.2021 passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955"), by which the learned trial court rejected the objection (Paper No.B-25) filed by the appellant and directed the attachment and auction of the property purchased by the appellant.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that husband of respondent No.1, Hanumant Lal had instituted a petition under Section 13 of Act, 1955 for divorce against his wife, Smt. Asha (respondent No.1) before the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki, registered as Case No.138 of 2018. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Smt. Asha moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself and Master R.B. Rawat, the minor son born out of the wedlock of Smt. Asha and Hanumant Lal. This application was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 directing Hanumant Lal (respondent No.3) to pay Rs.6,000/- as one-time expenses and Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Upon non-payment, Smt. Asha along with her minor son initiated Execution Case No.03 of 2022 before the Family Court, Barabanki. 2 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 Meanwhile, the original matrimonial case was dismissed in default on

15.07.2022 and no restoration application was filed. During this period, Hanumant Lal sold his share of property to the present appellant, Shiv Rata for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- through a registered sale deed on

19.06.2023.

4. Subsequently, an application was moved by Smt. Asha before the Family Court for execution of the order dated 31.08.2021. The Family Court directed the attachment and auction of the appellant's property, which originally belonged to Hanumant Lal (respondent No.3) for recovery of the maintenance dues.

5. The appellant filed objections (Paper No.B-25) claiming that she is a bona fide purchaser of the property and had no notice of the execution proceedings. These objections were rejected by the Family Court by its order dated 14.10.2025, which also directed the continuation of the attachment and auction proceedings, giving rise to the instant appeal.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, exceeded its authority by directing the attachment and auction of immovable property belonging to a third party/bona fide purchaser who is not the judgment- debtor in the original proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the appellant had no knowledge of any pending litigation before purchasing the property through the registered sale deed on 19.06.2023. The Family Court has erred in law and facts by holding that the appellant was aware of the pending litigation and complicit in any attempt by respondent No.3 to defeat the maintenance order.

7. It has also been argued that Section 24 of the Act, 1955, which grants maintenance pendente lite is an interlocutory and personal order enforceable only against the husband and not against his transferee or any third person unconnected with the matrimonial obligations.

8. Additionally, it has been argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate that no restraint or attachment order under Order XXI Rule 54 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) existed on the date of the sale deed and thus, the transfer cannot be deemed fraudulent. The appellant also contends that the 3 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 impugned order dated 14.10.2025 is contrary to the settled position of law that a transferee pendente lite is entitled to be heard in execution and that such a sale, though subject to lis pendens, cannot be summarily nullified without independent adjudication of ownership rights.

9. It has further been stated that after the order dated 14.10.2025, the appellant moved an adjournment application on 29.10.2025, which was arbitrarily rejected. The trial court also failed to acknowledge that the divorce case itself was dismissed in default on 15.07.2022 and therefore the execution of the interim maintenance order had lost its force due to the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that no execution case was maintainable alleging non-compliance of the order of maintenance under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC, as an order of maintenance cannot be executed as a money decree.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the impugned order.

11. From the order impugned, it is evident that an order of attachment had been passed, against which the appellant filed an objection application (B- 25) under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC. In her objection, the appellant stated that she is a third party and that Hanumant Lal (respondent No.3) had sold 0.489 hectare out of 1/18th of gata No.15 and 0.7320 hectare out of 1/18th of gata No.16 (total 1.221 hectares) including 0.678 hectare through a registered sale deed on 19.06.2023 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and that she is in possession of the said property along with co-tenure holders since the date of purchase. She claimed to have had no knowledge of the pendency of the execution proceedings.

12. The property in dispute belonged to the appellant's family and Hanumant Lal was attempting to sell the land at an unreasonably low price. Therefore, the objector i.e. the appellant purchased the land, paying Rs.1,00,000/- out of emotional attachment to the land, which belonged to her parents and Hanumant Lal executed the sale deed in her favour.

13. The respondent's suit for divorce failed and was dismissed in default and the order of maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 merged in the order passed finally in the divorce suit. Moreover, Smt. Asha Devi 4 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 wife of Hanumant Lal was already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 was not maintainable in the first place, making the decree non-executable. It was also argued that Gata No.15 belongs to several co-tenure holders and there is no formal partition among the co-tenure holders, rendering the decree non- executable.

14. Besides the objections already discussed, several other objections were raised, which have been incorporated in the forgoing part of this order as arguments presented by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court.

15. The trial court considered the arguments raised by the decree-holder, Smt. Asha, in her reply (Paper No.B-27). In the said Paper No.B-27, it was brought to the court's attention that the judgment-debtor, Hanumant Lal, is the real brother of the objector/appellant Shiv Rata. The property in question was already under charge and there was an existing order of maintenance passed by the Family Court. The sale of the land by the brother to the sister was, therefore, only to defeat the maintenance order passed by the Family Court in favour of Asha Devi and her minor son.

16. It was also stated in the objections filed in Paper B-27 that the maintenance order under Section 24 of Act, 1955 was passed in addition to the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The transfer of the property was made with a mala fide intent to defeat the execution of the trial court's maintenance order in favour of Hanumant Lal's wife and minor son.

17. The trial court thereafter considered the submissions made by the objector/appellant in her rejoinder (Paper No.B-29), in which she insisted that she is the bona fide purchaser of the property.

18. After taking into account the rejoinder objections, the trial court, from paragraph 6 onward, reviewed the law on the subject including the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noted the interim maintenance order dated

31.08.2021 and the application for execution filed on 30.05.2022. The judgment-debtor's appearance before the Family Court in the Execution Case on 15.11.2022, where he sought time to file objections, was also noted. It was found that Hanumant Lal, the judgment-debtor had full knowledge of 5 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 the execution case filed on 30.05.2022. Despite this, he sold his entire share, i.e., 1/18th part of Gata no.15 and Gata no.16 to his real sister and was instrumental in getting the objections filed by her in the execution case. The sale deed dated 19.06.2023 itself stated that the reasonable price of the property, as per the circle rate, was Rs.1,98,000/- but Hanumant Lal sold the property to his sister for only Rs.1,00,000/- in an apparent attempt to defeat the execution of the order dated 31.08.2021.

19. It was also stated in the registered sale deed that the transaction was conducted in cash, which appeared to be merely a sham transaction. The objector claimed that her brother wanted to sell the property at a very low price and, out of emotional attachment to the land, which belonged to their parents, she purchased it at what she believed was a reasonable price. However, this was considered a false pretense because, even according to the circle rate, the land in question was valued at Rs.1,98,000/-, while she had purchased it for only Rs.1,00,000/- and that too through a cash transaction.

20. The trial court, after considering the preliminary objection raised by the objector, concluded that the registered sale deed executed by the judgment- debtor, Hanumant Lal, who is the brother of the objector, was made with the sole objective of defeating the execution of the order dated 31.08.2021.

21. We do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order.

22. Hemant Lal had instituted a divorce case against his wife. During pendency of this case an appeal for maintenance under Section 24 was filed. An order of maintenance was passed. To defeat this order a clever method was devised to get the suit dismissed for non-prosecution. However, mere dismissal of the main case for want of prosecution cannot render an order passed for maintenance inexecutable unless the same is challenged separately in appeal before the competent court.

23. The trial court considered several judgments to reach its valid conclusion. We affirm the order dated 14.10.2025, particularly in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. We therefore deem it appropriate to quote paragraphs 125 and 132 thereof. 6 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 "125. The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21. (e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21."

24. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 12, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2022 (Smt. Asha and others vs. Hanumant Lal) arising out of the order dated

31.08.2021 passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955"), by which the learned trial court rejected the objection (Paper No.B-25) filed by the appellant and directed the attachment and auction of the property purchased by the appellant.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that husband of respondent No.1, Hanumant Lal had instituted a petition under Section 13 of Act, 1955 for divorce against his wife, Smt. Asha (respondent No.1) before the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki, registered as Case No.138 of 2018. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Smt. Asha moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself and Master R.B. Rawat, the minor son born out of the wedlock of Smt. Asha and Hanumant Lal. This application was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 directing Hanumant Lal (respondent No.3) to pay Rs.6,000/- as one-time expenses and Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Upon non-payment, Smt. Asha along with her minor son initiated Execution Case No.03 of 2022 before the Family Court, Barabanki. 2 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 Meanwhile, the original matrimonial case was dismissed in default on

15.07.2022 and no restoration application was filed. During this period, Hanumant Lal sold his share of property to the present appellant, Shiv Rata for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- through a registered sale deed on

19.06.2023.

4. Subsequently, an application was moved by Smt. Asha before the Family Court for execution of the order dated 31.08.2021. The Family Court directed the attachment and auction of the appellant's property, which originally belonged to Hanumant Lal (respondent No.3) for recovery of the maintenance dues.

5. The appellant filed objections (Paper No.B-25) claiming that she is a bona fide purchaser of the property and had no notice of the execution proceedings. These objections were rejected by the Family Court by its order dated 14.10.2025, which also directed the continuation of the attachment and auction proceedings, giving rise to the instant appeal.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, exceeded its authority by directing the attachment and auction of immovable property belonging to a third party/bona fide purchaser who is not the judgment- debtor in the original proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the appellant had no knowledge of any pending litigation before purchasing the property through the registered sale deed on 19.06.2023. The Family Court has erred in law and facts by holding that the appellant was aware of the pending litigation and complicit in any attempt by respondent No.3 to defeat the maintenance order.

7. It has also been argued that Section 24 of the Act, 1955, which grants maintenance pendente lite is an interlocutory and personal order enforceable only against the husband and not against his transferee or any third person unconnected with the matrimonial obligations.

8. Additionally, it has been argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate that no restraint or attachment order under Order XXI Rule 54 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) existed on the date of the sale deed and thus, the transfer cannot be deemed fraudulent. The appellant also contends that the 3 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 impugned order dated 14.10.2025 is contrary to the settled position of law that a transferee pendente lite is entitled to be heard in execution and that such a sale, though subject to lis pendens, cannot be summarily nullified without independent adjudication of ownership rights.

9. It has further been stated that after the order dated 14.10.2025, the appellant moved an adjournment application on 29.10.2025, which was arbitrarily rejected. The trial court also failed to acknowledge that the divorce case itself was dismissed in default on 15.07.2022 and therefore the execution of the interim maintenance order had lost its force due to the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that no execution case was maintainable alleging non-compliance of the order of maintenance under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC, as an order of maintenance cannot be executed as a money decree.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the impugned order.

11. From the order impugned, it is evident that an order of attachment had been passed, against which the appellant filed an objection application (B- 25) under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC. In her objection, the appellant stated that she is a third party and that Hanumant Lal (respondent No.3) had sold 0.489 hectare out of 1/18th of gata No.15 and 0.7320 hectare out of 1/18th of gata No.16 (total 1.221 hectares) including 0.678 hectare through a registered sale deed on 19.06.2023 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and that she is in possession of the said property along with co-tenure holders since the date of purchase. She claimed to have had no knowledge of the pendency of the execution proceedings.

12. The property in dispute belonged to the appellant's family and Hanumant Lal was attempting to sell the land at an unreasonably low price. Therefore, the objector i.e. the appellant purchased the land, paying Rs.1,00,000/- out of emotional attachment to the land, which belonged to her parents and Hanumant Lal executed the sale deed in her favour.

13. The respondent's suit for divorce failed and was dismissed in default and the order of maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 merged in the order passed finally in the divorce suit. Moreover, Smt. Asha Devi 4 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 wife of Hanumant Lal was already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 was not maintainable in the first place, making the decree non-executable. It was also argued that Gata No.15 belongs to several co-tenure holders and there is no formal partition among the co-tenure holders, rendering the decree non- executable.

14. Besides the objections already discussed, several other objections were raised, which have been incorporated in the forgoing part of this order as arguments presented by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court.

15. The trial court considered the arguments raised by the decree-holder, Smt. Asha, in her reply (Paper No.B-27). In the said Paper No.B-27, it was brought to the court's attention that the judgment-debtor, Hanumant Lal, is the real brother of the objector/appellant Shiv Rata. The property in question was already under charge and there was an existing order of maintenance passed by the Family Court. The sale of the land by the brother to the sister was, therefore, only to defeat the maintenance order passed by the Family Court in favour of Asha Devi and her minor son.

16. It was also stated in the objections filed in Paper B-27 that the maintenance order under Section 24 of Act, 1955 was passed in addition to the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The transfer of the property was made with a mala fide intent to defeat the execution of the trial court's maintenance order in favour of Hanumant Lal's wife and minor son.

17. The trial court thereafter considered the submissions made by the objector/appellant in her rejoinder (Paper No.B-29), in which she insisted that she is the bona fide purchaser of the property.

18. After taking into account the rejoinder objections, the trial court, from paragraph 6 onward, reviewed the law on the subject including the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noted the interim maintenance order dated

31.08.2021 and the application for execution filed on 30.05.2022. The judgment-debtor's appearance before the Family Court in the Execution Case on 15.11.2022, where he sought time to file objections, was also noted. It was found that Hanumant Lal, the judgment-debtor had full knowledge of 5 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 the execution case filed on 30.05.2022. Despite this, he sold his entire share, i.e., 1/18th part of Gata no.15 and Gata no.16 to his real sister and was instrumental in getting the objections filed by her in the execution case. The sale deed dated 19.06.2023 itself stated that the reasonable price of the property, as per the circle rate, was Rs.1,98,000/- but Hanumant Lal sold the property to his sister for only Rs.1,00,000/- in an apparent attempt to defeat the execution of the order dated 31.08.2021.

19. It was also stated in the registered sale deed that the transaction was conducted in cash, which appeared to be merely a sham transaction. The objector claimed that her brother wanted to sell the property at a very low price and, out of emotional attachment to the land, which belonged to their parents, she purchased it at what she believed was a reasonable price. However, this was considered a false pretense because, even according to the circle rate, the land in question was valued at Rs.1,98,000/-, while she had purchased it for only Rs.1,00,000/- and that too through a cash transaction.

20. The trial court, after considering the preliminary objection raised by the objector, concluded that the registered sale deed executed by the judgment- debtor, Hanumant Lal, who is the brother of the objector, was made with the sole objective of defeating the execution of the order dated 31.08.2021.

21. We do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order.

22. Hemant Lal had instituted a divorce case against his wife. During pendency of this case an appeal for maintenance under Section 24 was filed. An order of maintenance was passed. To defeat this order a clever method was devised to get the suit dismissed for non-prosecution. However, mere dismissal of the main case for want of prosecution cannot render an order passed for maintenance inexecutable unless the same is challenged separately in appeal before the competent court.

23. The trial court considered several judgments to reach its valid conclusion. We affirm the order dated 14.10.2025, particularly in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. We therefore deem it appropriate to quote paragraphs 125 and 132 thereof. 6 FAPL No. 191 of 2025 "125. The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21. (e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance

132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21."

24. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 12, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench