Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 586 (CHH)

Akanksha Gehalot W/o Antriksh Gehalot v. Antriksh Gehalot S/o Santosh Kumar Gehalot

2024-08-13

RAJANI DUBEY, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL

body2024
ORDER : 1. The appellant has preferred this First Appeal (MAT) against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Case No. 251A/2023 whereby the learned Family Court while deciding the application preferred by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite has granted Rs. 100/- to the appellant herein for each appearance and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- and has not awarded any amount under the head of maintenance. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while considering the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is the bounden duty of the Family Court to consider and pass a speaking order with regard to the maintenance pendente lite. The impugned order has been passed contrary to the spirit and mandate of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which aims to support either of the spouse during the pendency of the proceeding under the said Act. The appellant’s application dated 12.02.2024 was duly supported by an affidavit and the appellant had categorically stated that she has no independent source of income sufficient for her to live and bear the cost of living and further for the cost of proceeding. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that she requires monetary help to sustain her living and to contest the concerned proceeding and it was also specifically pleaded by the appellant that respondent is gainfully employed and earns substantial income of Rs. 30 lakhs per annum and also, has ancillary sources of income and these facts were never denied by the respondent in affidavit. 3. The learned trial Court relied upon the submission made by the respondent which was only oral and not supported by the affidavit. So, order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and the learned trial Court also awarded cost which is insufficient for daily expenses. As such, the impugned order is liable to be modified. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Burman vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman), (2009) 1 SCC 398. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 6. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 7. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Burman vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman), (2009) 1 SCC 398. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 6. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 7. It is evident that no speaking order has been passed with regard to the maintenance pendente lite. The learned trial Court only awarded Rs. 100/- for each appearance in the Court and Rs. 3,000/- for litigation cost. 8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under: “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 on 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.” 9. Hon’ble Apex Court held in the matter of Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh and Another, (2003) 10 SCC 228 in paragraph 08 which reads as under: “8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court in any proceeding under the Act, if 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 any one of them order the other party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to also the income of both the petitioner and the respondent. Once the High Court, in this case, has come to the conclusion that the appellant wife herein has to be provided with the litigation expenses and monthly maintenance, it is beyond comprehension as to how, dehors the criteria laid down in the statutory provision itself, the Court could have thought of imposing an extraneous condition, with a default clause which is likely to defeat the very claim which has been sustained by the Court itself. Considerations as to the ultimate outcome of the main proceeding after regular trial would be wholly alien to assess the need or necessity for awarding interim maintenance, as long as the marriage, the dissolution of which has been sought, cannot be disputed, and the marital relationship of husband and wife subsisted. As noticed earlier, the relevant statutory consideration being only that either of the parties, who was the petitioner in the application under Section 24 of the Act, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, for the grant of interim maintenance, the same has to be granted and the discretion thereafter left with the court, in our view, is only with reference to reasonableness of the amount that could be awarded and not to impose any condition, which has self-defeating consequence. Therefore, we are unable to approve of the course adopted by the learned Single Judge, in this case.” 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 in paragraph 79 held as under. “79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.” 11. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.” 11. In the light of above, it is clear that in the impugned order, the learned trial Court finds that both the parties did not file any document of income, but it is clear from the documents filed by the appellant that her application was supported by the affidavit and respondent did not file any affidavit as per the appellant. It is also vivid from the impugned order that the respondent is working as a Bank Manager. So, in the light of provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and guideline of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are inclined to allow this appeal and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 is modified and it is directed that the respondent/husband shall pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to his wife/appellant from the date of order dated 12.02.2024 till the final decision of the case and also pay Rs. 500/- for her each appearance before this Court and litigation cost Rs. 3,000/-. 12. The learned trial Court is also directed to decide the matter as early as possible with the cooperation of both the parties.