1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2941 of 2025 16th October, 2025 Vishnu Kumar Sharma --Petitioner Versus Smt. Shaifali --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the order dated 23.08.2025, annexure no.4, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.531 of 2022, Vishnu Kumar vs. Shaifali. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 25.11.2020. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born on 11.08.2021. After the birth of the daughter, the respondent began pressuring the petitioner to live separately and started creating disturbances within the family. In an effort to save his matrimonial life, the petitioner began residing in a rented accommodation along with the respondent and their daughter. However, the respondent did not change her behaviour; she misbehaved with the petitioner and pressured him to leave Haridwar and reside at her parental home in Gurgaon, Haryana. When the petitioner refused to comply, the respondent lodged a complaint against him alleging dowry demands. Subsequently, on 05.02.2021, the respondent ousted the petitioner from the rented accommodation and refused to continue the 2 matrimonial relationship. Despite the petitioner's sincere efforts to persuade the respondent to fulfill her matrimonial obligations, she categorically refused to resume the relationship. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In response, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance for expenses incurred on travel, food, legal costs, etc., and claimed a total amount of Rs. 43,000/- from the petitioner. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, allowed the said application vide order dated 23.08.2025. The court directed the petitioner to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000/- as Advocate’s fees and further directed that for each previous date on which the respondent appeared in court, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,000/-, and going forward, for every future date of appearance by the respondent, the petitioner shall continue to pay Rs. 3,000/- per date. The petitioner was also directed to clear all arrears within one month. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. The trial court failed to assess the income of the petitioner and arbitrarily awarded an excessive amount of Rs. 3,000/- per date. He further submits that the respondent is an educated and capable woman, fond of travelling, and is in contact with various male friends through social media. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, as well as the material available on record. The Family Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and there is no material irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The amount awarded does not appear to be excessive or arbitrary, considering the fact that the petitioner is under a legal obligation to provide necessary financial assistance to the respondent for prosecuting the litigation effectively. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.10.2025 AK