IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 248 Manju Bala Raj Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-11896-CII on record Annexures P11 and P12. which is supported by affidavit of the applicant/petitioner, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexures P11 and P12 are taken on record. MAIN CASE India is filed seeking setting aside of order dated 10.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar vide which application filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Petitioner in person. Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CII-2023 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record Annexures P11 and P12. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant/petitioner, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexures P11 and P12 are taken on record. Present petition under Article 227 of the India is filed seeking setting aside of order dated 10.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar vide which application filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4551-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 26.03.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant/petitioner, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexures P11 and P12 are petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking setting aside of order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar vide which application filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu 10 Constitution of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar vide which application filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Marriage Act for grant of be dismissed. 2. that the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite was dismissed b learned Family Court primarily on two grounds been held not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Family Court Rs.2,500/- per month from the Haryana Government. 3. aforesaid grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of maintenance petitioner was fact that she was receiving pension of Rs.2,500/ that however, the learned Court below has failed that as the said pension which was being received by the petitioner was discontinued vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P12) dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CRR pending before this Court. As such incorrect premise and deserves to be set aside. Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner appearing in person inter alia submits that the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite was dismissed b learned Family Court primarily on two grounds been held not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Family Court; and b) that the petitioner was receiving pension of per month from the Haryana Government. The petitioner appearing in person submits that both the aforesaid grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of maintenance pendente lite, are unsustainable petitioner was denied maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to the fact that she was receiving pension of Rs.2,500/ that however, the learned Court below has failed that as the said pension which was being received by the petitioner was discontinued vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P12) dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been challenged by ioner before this Court by way of CRR pending before this Court. As such, the impugned order incorrect premise and deserves to be set aside. maintenance pendente lite has been ordered to The petitioner appearing in person inter alia submits that the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite was dismissed by the learned Family Court primarily on two grounds: a) that the petitioner had been held not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the that the petitioner was receiving pension of per month from the Haryana Government. The petitioner appearing in person submits that both the aforesaid grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant pendente lite, are unsustainable. It is submitted that the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to the fact that she was receiving pension of Rs.2,500/- per month. It is submitted that however, the learned Court below has failed to take note of the fact that as the said pension which was being received by the petitioner was discontinued vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P12). In any event, the dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been challenged by ioner before this Court by way of CRR-F-359-2021, which is still the impugned order is based on incorrect premise and deserves to be set aside. 10 maintenance pendente lite has been ordered to The petitioner appearing in person inter alia submits that the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu y the er had been held not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the that the petitioner was receiving pension of The petitioner appearing in person submits that both the aforesaid grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant . It is submitted that the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to the per month. It is submitted to take note of the fact that as the said pension which was being received by the petitioner was any event, the dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been challenged by , which is still is based on SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the respondent is a poor labourer earning only Rs.6,000/ the petitioner is a well was married to the petitioner barely for 10 days. No child is born out of their wedlock. Moreover, the petitioner was previously married which marriage was dissolved with mutual consent whereupon the petitioner had received settlement amo present petition be dismissed. 5. 6. and ld. counsel for the respondent the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. 7. petitioner. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 01.02.2017 since 10.02.2017 petitioner is also qualified being PGDCA B.Ed. This fact is evident from the educational and professional qualifications as mentioned by the petitioner in her Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities (Annexure P4) before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar. On the other hand, as per the Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the respondent is a poor labourer earning only Rs.6,000/ the petitioner is a well-qualified lady being PGDCA B.E was married to the petitioner barely for 10 days. No child is born out of their wedlock. Moreover, the petitioner was previously married which marriage was dissolved with mutual consent whereupon the petitioner had received settlement amount of Rs.7 lakh. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the counsel for the respondent and given by thoug the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. I find no merit in the submissions made by the Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 01.02.2017; and since 10.02.2017. No child is born out of their wedlock. petitioner is also qualified being PGDCA B.Ed. This fact is evident from the educational and professional qualifications as mentioned by the petitioner er Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities (Annexure P4) before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar. On the other hand, as per the Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the respondent is a poor labourer earning only Rs.6,000/- per month; whereas qualified lady being PGDCA B.Ed. The respondent was married to the petitioner barely for 10 days. No child is born out of their wedlock. Moreover, the petitioner was previously married which marriage was dissolved with mutual consent whereupon the petitioner had It is accordingly prayed that the made on behalf of the parties. arned counsel for the petitioner in person given by thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. I find no merit in the submissions made by the Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitioner was ; and they are living separately . No child is born out of their wedlock. Admittedly, the petitioner is also qualified being PGDCA B.Ed. This fact is evident from the educational and professional qualifications as mentioned by the petitioner er Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities (Annexure P4) before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar. On the other hand, as per the Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent 10 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the per month; whereas d. The respondent was married to the petitioner barely for 10 days. No child is born out of their wedlock. Moreover, the petitioner was previously married which marriage was dissolved with mutual consent whereupon the petitioner had It is accordingly prayed that the petitioner in person htful consideration to I find no merit in the submissions made by the Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitioner was they are living separately Admittedly, the petitioner is also qualified being PGDCA B.Ed. This fact is evident from the educational and professional qualifications as mentioned by the petitioner er Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities (Annexure P4) before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar. On the other hand, as per the Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Annexure P5), he is BA 1 Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the Affidavit of the respondent, the petitioner is also giving salary and also is getting Widow Pension from the Government amou Rs.2500/- per month according to online print of pension ID of concerned Departments.”. 8. (Annexure P- that she is getting Rs.2,500/ remains undisputed between the parties that vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P12), the Besahara Pension being given to th been discontinued. previously married to one marriage was subsequently dissolved with mutual consent after 5 years whereupon the petitione 9. petitioner before this Court that the petition filed Cr.P.C. was dismissed In the said petition the petitioner had alleged that the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain her; that she was left at her parental home by the respondent and his brother after 10 days of marriage; that the respondent is impotent; that demand (Annexure P5), he is BA 1st year and is working as a labourer earning per month. As per the Affidavit of the respondent, the petitioner is also giving “...tuition of Computer education and is getting handsome salary and also is getting Widow Pension from the Government amou per month according to online print of pension ID of concerned Departments.”. The petitioner has further -4), that she has monthly expenses of Rs.30,000/ that she is getting Rs.2,500/- per month as Besahara Pension. However, it remains undisputed between the parties that vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P12), the Besahara Pension being given to th been discontinued. It is also undisputed on record that the petitioner is previously married to one Bajrang Singla in the year 2010 and the said marriage was subsequently dissolved with mutual consent after 5 years the petitioner had received Rs.7 lakh as settlement amount. Further, it has been in petitioner before this Court that the petition filed dismissed as she was receiving pension of Rs.2,500/ In the said petition the petitioner had alleged that the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain her; that she was left at her parental home by the respondent and his brother after 10 days of marriage; that the respondent is impotent; that demand of dowry was raised by the ear and is working as a labourer earning per month. As per the Affidavit of the respondent, the petitioner “...tuition of Computer education and is getting handsome salary and also is getting Widow Pension from the Government amounting per month according to online print of pension ID of concerned further admitted in her Affidavit that she has monthly expenses of Rs.30,000/- per month; per month as Besahara Pension. However, it remains undisputed between the parties that vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P12), the Besahara Pension being given to the petitioner has It is also undisputed on record that the petitioner is Bajrang Singla in the year 2010 and the said marriage was subsequently dissolved with mutual consent after 5 years; r had received Rs.7 lakh as settlement amount. incorrectly submitted by the petitioner before this Court that the petition filed by her under Section 125 as she was receiving pension of Rs.2,500/- per month. In the said petition the petitioner had alleged that the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain her; that she was left at her parental home by the respondent and his brother after 10 days of marriage; that the of dowry was raised by the 10 ear and is working as a labourer earning per month. As per the Affidavit of the respondent, the petitioner “...tuition of Computer education and is getting handsome nting per month according to online print of pension ID of concerned admitted in her Affidavit per month; per month as Besahara Pension. However, it remains undisputed between the parties that vide order dated 21.06.2023 e petitioner has It is also undisputed on record that the petitioner is Bajrang Singla in the year 2010 and the said ; correctly submitted by the by her under Section 125 per month. In the said petition the petitioner had alleged that the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain her; that she was left at her parental home by the respondent and his brother after 10 days of marriage; that the of dowry was raised by the SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document respondent and his family members. dated 17.09.2021 (Annexure P6) petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. evidence by the petitioner were found to be false petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own free will. found that there was no medical evidence to prove that the given severe beatings by the respondent and his family. Even allegations of dowry demand were not prima facie established as except for the bald statement of the petitioner in this regard there was no evidence led by her to substantiate the carried out as per which he was not found to be impotent. From the above evidence, the learned Family Court concluded that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own accord, and was therefore, n to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 dated 17.02.2025 in case FIR No.116 dated 13.05.2017 registered him by the petitioner Station Uklana 11. are as follows: respondent and his family members. However, a p dated 17.09.2021 (Annexure P6) shows that the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was evidence by the parties, all the above said allegations made by the petitioner were found to be false. Upon evidence it was found that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own free will. found that there was no medical evidence to prove that the given severe beatings by the respondent and his family. Even allegations of dowry demand were not prima facie established as except for the bald statement of the petitioner in this regard there was no evidence led by her to substantiate the same. Medical examination of the respondent was carried out as per which he was not found to be impotent. From the above evidence, the learned Family Court concluded that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own accord, and was therefore, n to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also undisputed on record that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 dated 17.02.2025 in case FIR No.116 dated 13.05.2017 registered him by the petitioner under Sections 323, 406, 498 Station Uklana. Reasons given in the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 ollows: - However, a perusal of the said order shows that the petition filed by the was dismissed as upon leading of parties, all the above said allegations made by the pon evidence it was found that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own free will. It was also found that there was no medical evidence to prove that the petitioner was given severe beatings by the respondent and his family. Even allegations of dowry demand were not prima facie established as except for the bald statement of the petitioner in this regard there was no evidence led by her Medical examination of the respondent was carried out as per which he was not found to be impotent. From the above evidence, the learned Family Court concluded that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home of her own accord, and was therefore, not entitled It is also undisputed on record that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hisar vide order dated 17.02.2025 in case FIR No.116 dated 13.05.2017 registered against under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police given in the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 10 order shows that the petition filed by the upon leading of parties, all the above said allegations made by the pon evidence it was found that the also petitioner was given severe beatings by the respondent and his family. Even allegations of dowry demand were not prima facie established as except for the bald statement of the petitioner in this regard there was no evidence led by her Medical examination of the respondent was carried out as per which he was not found to be impotent. From the above evidence, the learned Family Court concluded that the petitioner had left entitled It is also undisputed on record that the respondent has Class, Hisar vide order against A and 506 IPC at Police given in the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. pension. However, given the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a very well-qualified she is not invalid “9. The present petition has been filed by Manju Bala against her husband Raj Kumar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by way of decree of divorce. The marriage between the parties to the petition was solemnized on 01.02.2017 as per Hindu Rites and It is admitted fact that no child was born out of this wedlock. The parties have also admitted this fact that they are residing separately for the last several years. The applicant has claimed to be unemployed and fully dependent upon her parents whereas a perusal of her bank account and affidavit of assets and liabilities reveals that she is getting pension of Rs. 2,500/ per month in her account. The averments made by the applicant regarding the income of the respondent are not even prima facie proved. Moreover, the respondent has placed on record copy of order passed by this Court in a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. wherein she was declined relief of maintenance as she has left the matrimoni without any sufficient reason or excuse. The applicant is having pension income, therefore, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, the application in question is hereby dismissed. However, the applicant is one time litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,500/ Application is disposed of accordingly. No doubt, the petitioner is no longer receiving any pension. However, given the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a very ualified lady being PGDCA B.Ed.; and has admitted in the Court that she is not invalid; and has also admitted that she is not working The present petition has been filed by Manju Bala against her husband Raj Kumar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by way of decree of divorce. The marriage between the parties to the petition was olemnized on 01.02.2017 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is admitted fact that no child was born out of this wedlock. The parties have also admitted this fact that they are residing separately for the last several years. The applicant has claimed be unemployed and fully dependent upon her parents whereas a perusal of her bank account and affidavit of assets and liabilities reveals that she is getting pension of Rs. 2,500/- per month in her account. The averments made by the income of the respondent are not even prima facie proved. Moreover, the respondent has placed on record copy of order passed by this Court in a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. wherein she was declined relief of maintenance as she has left the matrimonial home of her own without any sufficient reason or excuse. The applicant is having pension income, therefore, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, the application in question is hereby dismissed. However, the applicant is held entitled to one time litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,500/-. Application is disposed of accordingly.” No doubt, the petitioner is no longer receiving any pension. However, given the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a very and has admitted in the Court that and has also admitted that she is not working; and has 10 The present petition has been filed by Manju Bala against her husband Raj Kumar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage by way of decree of divorce. The marriage between the parties to the petition was Ceremonies. It is admitted fact that no child was born out of this wedlock. The parties have also admitted this fact that they are residing separately for the last several years. The applicant has claimed be unemployed and fully dependent upon her parents whereas a perusal of her bank account and affidavit of assets - per month in her account. The averments made by the income of the respondent are not even prima facie proved. Moreover, the respondent has placed on record copy of order passed by this Court in a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. wherein she was declined relief of al home of her own without any sufficient reason or excuse. The applicant is having pension income, therefore, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, the application in question is held entitled to . No doubt, the petitioner is no longer receiving any pension. However, given the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a very and has admitted in the Court that ; and has SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document also admitted that she has no other responsibilities as there is no child out of the wedlock; previously taking valid reason is made out as to why the petitioner has chosen not to work. 13. judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Vs. Gurumanjunatha Doc ID # 2260157, “8. The records was working as is evident from her cross examination. Her cross examination also reveals that she was residing along with her mother. It is also evident from her admission that, even after her desertion she continued to stay in the rented h mother itself and the allegation does establish that she was not interested to stay with respondent Nos. 2 to 4. that at the instance of the present petitioner No. 1, a separate house was taken on rent and now th are residing therein along with her mother, but she was reluctant to stay with her mother an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 provision stores. Further, he his mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is i idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also also admitted that she has no other responsibilities as there is no child out lock; it has also been admitted by the petitioner that she was previously taking tuitions and was teaching in Oxford School valid reason is made out as to why the petitioner has chosen not to work. In these above facts, reference may be made judgment of the Karnataka High Court in “Smt. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & Others”, 2023 SCC OnLine Doc ID # 2260157,wherein it has been held as “8. The records also disclosed that before marriage was working as is evident from her cross examination. Her cross examination also reveals that she was residing along with her mother. It is also evident from her admission that, even after her desertion she continued to stay in the rented h mother itself and the allegation does establish that she was not interested to stay with respondent Nos. 2 to 4. that at the instance of the present petitioner No. 1, a separate house was taken on rent and now th are residing therein along with her mother, but she was reluctant to stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister admitted fact that respondent No. 1 provision stores. Further, he is having responsibility of taking care of mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also also admitted that she has no other responsibilities as there is no child out has also been admitted by the petitioner that she was and was teaching in Oxford School; therefore, no valid reason is made out as to why the petitioner has chosen not to work.. In these above facts, reference may be made to Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others A.S. & Others”, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder has been held as under:- also disclosed that before marriage petitioner No.1 was working as is evident from her cross examination. Her cross examination also reveals that she was residing along with her mother. It is also evident from her admission that, even after her desertion she continued to stay in the rented house along with her mother itself and the allegation does establish that she was not interested to stay with respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fact that at the instance of the present petitioner No. 1, a separate house was taken on rent and now the petitioners i.e., wife and child are residing therein along with her mother, but she was reluctant to law and unmarried sister-in-law. It is admitted fact that respondent No. 1- husband is running is having responsibility of taking care of mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as ncapable of working now. She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also 10 also admitted that she has no other responsibilities as there is no child out has also been admitted by the petitioner that she was therefore, no to J. M. & Others 36, Law Finder petitioner No.1 was working as is evident from her cross examination. Her cross examination also reveals that she was residing along with her mother. It is also evident from her admission that, even after her ouse along with her mother itself and the allegation does establish that she was not It is an admitted fact that at the instance of the present petitioner No. 1, a separate e petitioners i.e., wife and child are residing therein along with her mother, but she was reluctant to law. It is husband is running is having responsibility of taking care of mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband". 13. of Delhi in “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rinku Dahiya” wherein it has been held as under: fortably. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not 14. case of “Bhushan Kumar Law Finder Doc legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband". Reference may also be made to judgment of High Court “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rinku Dahiya” wherein it has been held as under:- “11. We observe that in the present case, where both the spouses are equally qualified and are earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Act. The object of Section 24 of the Act is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under HMA either party should not be handicapped and litigate only because of paucity of source of income. The provision for interim/pendent lite maintenance has been made only to help either spouse to sail through the litigation expenses and also to ensure that they are ab fortably. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance which is commensurate to maintain a similar life style as the other spouse as has been observ this Court in the case of K.N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 decided on 12.02.2019.” In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen Law Finder Doc Id # 547724, has held that “ legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband". (Emphasis supplied) Reference may also be made to judgment of High Court “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rinku Dahiya” Law Finder Doc ID # 2349279, We observe that in the present case, where both the qualified and are earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of The object of Section 24 of the Act is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under HMA either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income. The provision for interim/pendent lite maintenance has been made only to help either spouse to sail through the litigation expenses and also to ensure that they are able to live com- fortably. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance which is commensurate to maintain a similar life style as the other spouse as has been observed by K.N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 (Emphasis supplied) In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meen Alias Harpreet Kaur (SC)”: has held that “However, having regard to 10 legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she lied) Reference may also be made to judgment of High Court Law Finder Doc ID # 2349279, We observe that in the present case, where both the qualified and are earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of The object of Section 24 of the Act is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under HMA either party suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income. The provision for interim/pendent lite maintenance has been made only to help either spouse to sail through the litigation - fortably. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance which is commensurate to maintain a ed by K.N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 (Emphasis supplied) In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alias Harpreet Kaur (SC)”: However, having regard to SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document qualifications that Wife possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in future taken in case of 183207. 15. of the petitioner to maintain herself. maintenance provisions burden upon the hapless husband; but is to protect abandoned wives are unable to maintain themselves present case, that is not so. 16. Act, maintenance pendente lite is payable to a spouse during matrimonial proceedings when a spouse lacks the independent income to support themselves. under Section 24 been receiving pension order dated 21.06.2023. 17. 18. 26.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: qualifications that Wife possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in future taken in case of “Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. The ennoble purpose of maintenance provisions is not to spawn idle wives, and to foist the entire burden upon the hapless husband; but is to protect abandoned wives are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. present case, that is not so. Furthermore, under Secti Act, maintenance pendente lite is payable to a spouse during matrimonial proceedings when a spouse lacks the independent income to support themselves. In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, admittedly, the petitioner receiving pension; which has been discontinued only thereafter vide order dated 21.06.2023. In view of the above, present Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No qualifications that Wife possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in future…”. Similar view has been Kaul (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id# It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty The ennoble purpose of the is not to spawn idle wives, and to foist the entire burden upon the hapless husband; but is to protect abandoned wives who from vagrancy and destitution. In the Furthermore, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance pendente lite is payable to a spouse during matrimonial proceedings when a spouse lacks the independent income to support In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings of the Hindu Marriage Act, admittedly, the petitioner had discontinued only thereafter vide present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 qualifications that Wife possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to Similar view has been Law Finder Doc Id# It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty the is not to spawn idle wives, and to foist the entire who In the on 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance pendente lite is payable to a spouse during matrimonial proceedings when a spouse lacks the independent income to support In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings had discontinued only thereafter vide SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document