1 2025:CGHC:44823-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 311 of 2025 1 - Vikramdas Mahant S/o Judavandas Mahant Aged About 57 Years R/o Behind Jutmil Chowki Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kalpana Mahant W/o Vikramdas Mahant Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Jutmil Chowki Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per , Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 03.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this appeal challenging the order dated July 27, 2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Learned Family Court Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No.23A/2025 which is impugned herein. Thereafter, the tribunal rejected the petitioner's appeal without proper application of mind, according to the appellant. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the present case are that the appellant filed a appeal for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Upon issuance of notice by the trial court, the respondent appeared and filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking interim maintenance and litigation costs (Annexure A-2). The applicant contested the application, denying the respondent’s claims and asserting that the respondent had deserted the matrimonial home without valid cause, while being gainfully employed at Global Hospital and owning a tea shop. The applicant further contended that the respondent’s prior application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on merits, and therefore, the Section 24 application should be rejected (Annexure A-3). However, after considering the submissions and evidence, the learned Family Court allowed the respondent’s application by order dated 28.08.2025, directing the applicant to pay 7,000 as litigation ₹ costs and 4,000 per month as interim maintenance. Being ₹ aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 23A/2025 is illegal, unjust, and contrary to law and the facts of the case. The learned court erred in disregarding the earlier rejection of the respondent’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., where it was conclusively found that 3 the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without just cause and is gainfully employed at Global Hospital and owns a tea shop, thus possessing an independent source of income. The Family Court failed to appreciate that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is intended to provide relief only when the applicant has no independent means of support, which is not the case here. Moreover, the appellant continues to bear the financial burden of paying the home loan EMI on the property where the respondent resides, a fact which the court overlooked while assessing liability. The respondent’s repeated applications for maintenance, despite the dismissal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and no change in circumstances, amount to an abuse of the judicial process. The purpose of Section 24 is to ensure that a spouse is not financially incapacitated during litigation, not to overturn prior judicial findings or impose undue burden. Therefore, the appellant should be liable only for litigation costs and not for interim maintenance, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, peruse the documents available on record and particularly the impugned order. 5. In the interest of justice and to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are thoroughly examined, this appeal is allowed while setting aside the impugned order, the matter is hereby remitted to the Learned Family Court, Raigarh, for fresh consideration of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu 4 Marriage Act, 1955, after providing both parties an opportunity of being heard and recording appropriate evidence as necessary. The Family Court is directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the financial status of both parties, including the appellant’s liabilities and the respondent’s income, while safeguarding the objectives of Section 24. The learned Family Court is further directed to consider the case and decide the same without being influenced by the earlier orders passed by the Learned Family Court and should ensure that the laws and fair hearing are adhered to in the proceedings. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna