1 2025:CGHC:34676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 254 of 2024  Bharati Indurkar W/o Shri Mukesh Sahare, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward No.7, Mishiya Bada, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Mukesh Sahare S/o Shri S.L. Sahare, Aged About 39 Years R/o Dadar Road, Charoda, Tahsil- Dhamdha, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare the order dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure P/4) as illegal and bad in law and to quash the same. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and to pass the order a fresh as per section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after perusing the documents and application available on records and to grant the maintenance amount pendente lite of the divorse petition. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a proceeding under SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.22 14:48:57 +0530 2 Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “Act, 1955”), the wife/petitioner moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, claiming therein litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-, maintenance amount Rs. 20,000/- per month and traveling expenses of Rs. 3000/- on each date of hearing. He would further submit that the learned Family Court, Durg, granted Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 200/- per hearing as traveling expenses. He would also submit that the earning of the husband according to the affidavit filed in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC is Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- per month, and thus, the learned Family Court, Durg has granted a meagre amount towards the litigation and travel expenses. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent/husband has the liability of his parents and other family members; in the opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court has granted a reasonable sum, but looking to the increase in the cost of traveling expense, Rs. 200/- is enhanced to Rs. 300/-, which shall be payable to the wife/petitioner on each date of hearing. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant