1 2025:CGHC:51290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 363 of 2025 Rita Jalan W/o Shri Amit Kumar Jalan, D/o Sita Ram Kanodia, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khatu Shyam Mandir Road, Near Homeopathic College, Raju Badi, Ram Kund, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Amit Kumar Jalan S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Jalan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 27 Abhoy Guha Road, Second Floor, Room No. 205, Near Post Office, Don Bosco School, Liluha, Belru, Howra, West Bengal, Pin 711204 ... Respondent (Cause title taken from CIS System) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 15.10.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/wife, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.4.2025(Annexure- A/1) passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 454/2024 whereby the interim maintenance application filed by the appellant/wife was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Family Court is completely illegal, Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 erroneous and contrary to the law, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Learned Family Court has wrongly decided the application and the appellant/wife was always ready to live with the respondent/husband together, but the respondent/husband has denied to live with her and as per Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant/wife is entitled for maintenance and litigation expenses, but the learned Family Court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So, the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure- A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur is liable to be set aside and wife/appellant is entitled for one time permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) or Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for expenses of suit in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 5. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is reproduced herein for ready reference as under:- Section 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 of 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 petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. 1[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.] 3 6. It is evident from the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) that respondent/husband has filed divorce application against the appellant/wife and wife has filed application dated 30.09.2024 under Section 25 (1) read with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for one time permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) or Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for expenses of suit. 7. Learned Family Court after hearing argument of both the parties partly allowed the application of the appellant/wife by awarding Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses and passed impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure- A/1). 8. Operative para of impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) is reproduced herein for ready reference as under:- " अभिलेख से स्पष्ट हो रहा है कि प्ररण में वाद- पद किर्मिमत हीं किये गये है। प्ररण े किरारण में समय लगे ी संावा से इंार हीं किया जा सता। किववाह- किवच्छेद संबंधी आवेद, आवेद अकिमत ु मार जला े द्वारा पेश किया गया है। ऐसी दशा में इस मामले ी तथ्यों एवं परिरस्थिस्2तितयों ो देखते हुए अावेकिदा ो वाद- व्यय े 10,000/-रू. एमुश्त राभिश आवेद से किदलाया जाा उति8त प्रतीत हो रहा है। जहां त इस वाद े लंबाल में अावेकिदा ो रण- पोषण ी राभिश किदलाये जाे ा संबंध है, इस संबंध में आवेद े अपे लिललिखत जवाब में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अावेकिदा, आवेद से बतौर रण- पोषण ी राभिश 15,000/-रु. प्रतितमाह प्राप्त र रही है। उक्त तथ्यों ी पुकिष्ट अावेकिदा ी ओर से प्रस्तुत प्ररण ०-एमसीसी/113/2021 पक्षार रिरता जला किवरूद्ध अकिमत ु मार जला जो कि इसी न्यायालय में लंकिबत है, से ी पुकिष्ट हो रही है। ऐसी दशा में इस प्ररण में अावेकिदा ो रण- पोषण ी राभिश किदलाये जाे ी आवश्यता प्रतीत हीं हो रहा है। अतः अावेकिदा ा उक्त संबंध में किया गया किवेद अस्वीार किया जाता है त2ा आवेद ो किदFभिशत ी किया जाता है कि अावेकिदा ो बतौर वाद- व्यय 10,000/- रू. आगामी तित2ी पर अदा रें।" 4 9. It is quite evident from the impugned order that the appellant/wife is getting Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the respondent/ husband in maintenance case pending before the same Family Court. Thus, the learned Family Court has only awarded Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and has rightly held at this stage that wife is not entitled for any additional maintenance amount and thereby awarded Rs. 10,000/- for expenses of litigation, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. In consequence, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself without issuing notice to the other party, however it is directed that the learned Family Court shall decide the suit/trial expeditiously as early as possible with cooperation of both the parties preferably within ‘04 months’ from the date of this order. 11. The copy of this order be sent immediately to the learned Family Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL