HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 470 of 2024 Anita Bharti ….......Appellant Vs. Amit Kumar …..... Respondent Present : Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.10.2024, passed in Case No.34 of 2023, Amit Kumar Vs. Anita Bharti, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”), by which, an application of the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”) has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on a petition filed by the respondent seeking divorce from the appellant in the case; an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the appellant. According to the appellant she was getting Rs.10,000/- per month as an interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). She is not in a position to contest the divorce suit due to financial constraints. 2 4. According to the appellant the respondent has been working as a Sub Inspector in the Uttarakhand Police and getting Rs.1,25,000/- per month salary; he also received rent to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent may be directed to pay her Rs.25,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite as well as Rs.17,000/- as litigation expenses of the case. The respondent did file his objections. 5. According to the respondent, the income of the respondent has been exaggerated by the appellant. The appellant is a lawyer, who is practicing in the District Courts and earns Rs.1 Lakhs per month; she also takes tuitions; the net salary of the respondent is Rs.76,800/- per month; he pays Rs.50,311/- installments per month. 6. In the impugned order, after hearing the parties, the court observed that the appellant is in UGC fellowship and getting Rs.35,000/- per month. Therefore, she is not entitled to get interim maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the UGC fellowship is to expire sometimes in the month of November, 2025. Even otherwise, it is argued that the fellowship expenses are only to meet the expenses for books and travelling expenses, etc. The part of maintenance is separate. She is physically disabled person. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent is a Sub Inspector in the Uttarakhand Police, who gets Rs.1,25,000/- per month salary. Therefore, the appellant is entitled 3 to maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of the case. She is also entitled for litigation expenses. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent gets Rs.83,506/- per month net salary; his deductions are Rs.24,771/- per month. He submits that the respondent is also paying Rs.10,000/- as an interim maintenance in a maintenance proceeding to the appellant. Now, more money is not required. 9. The maintenance is granted keeping in view the way of living of the parties. The appellant is definitely entitled to be maintained commensurate with the living standard of the respondent. It is admitted that the respondent is working as a Sub Inspector in the Uttarakhand Police. In his objections to the application under Section 24 of the Act the respondent has stated that the net salary of the respondent is Rs.76,800/- and he pays Rs.50,311/- installments per month. It means, he earns more than Rs.1.25 lakh per month, but pay slip has been enclosed to reveal that he gets Rs.83,506/- per month net salary and his gross salary is Rs.1,08,277/- per month. 10. Be it as it may, keeping in view the financial status and financial resources of both the parties, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be paid Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite as well as Rs.10,000/- per month as litigation expenses. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 11. The appeal is allowed. 4 12. The order dated 23.10.2024, passed in the case is set aside. The application under Section 24 of the Act preferred by the appellant before the court below is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite as well as Rs.10,000/- per month as litigation expenses to the respondent. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.11.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd50 4686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8 EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.11.15 14:59:49 +05'30'