1 2026:CGHC:23068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 616 of 2025 1 - Nishant Singh S/o S.N. Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Akash -509 Harsh Heavens Ashok Nagar D.P Law College Road Sarkanda Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kanchan Kumari Yadav W/o Nishant Singh D/o Babban Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Quarter No.C 39 Shaktinagar Jarhi Colony Police Station Bhatgaon District Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Civil Suit No. 119-A/2024, whereby the learned Family Court granted the maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the respondent and Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum under head of cost of litigation. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.30 12:13:34 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnised on 03.05.2023. After about 17-18 days of the marriage, as per their rituals, the respondent/wife came back to her parents’ house and again went to her matrimonial house in the month of June, 2023. Since the petitioner husband was working in Bangalore, he returned to his workplace, leaving the respondent’s wife at Bilaspur. However, the petitioner husband has not taken her with him, and the respondent wife has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, on 23.08.2024. On 04.12.2024, after the petitioner-husband in the proceedings, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and the cost of litigation. After hearing the parties, the learned family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has granted Rs. 20,000/- as the maintenance pendente lite till the conclusion of the proceeding and Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum cost of litigation vide its order dated 17.04.2025 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the objection raised by the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife had filed her affidavit as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Neha and Another, 3 (2021 (2) SCC 324), in which she deliberately concealed the material facts and simply denied the every paragraphs of the affidavit in format showing herself as a pauper. The respondent/wife does not belong to the below poverty line category. She filed her bank account statement for the period between 13.01.2022 to 26.07.2022, 15.10.2023 to 24.03.2024 and 16.10.2024 to 12.01.2025, which revealed that an amount of Rs. 1,05,954/- has been deposited in her account from 15.10.2023 to 31.12.2023 and Rs. 3,14,580/- between the period from 01.01.2024 to March 2024 and further Rs. 1,06,121/- between 16.10.2024 to 08.01.2025. The said deposition of the amount in the bank account of the respondent/wife would reveal that she deliberately did not file the bank transaction details for the period between 01.01.2022 to 12.01.2022, 27.07.2022 to 14.10.2023 and 25.03.2024 to 15.10.2024. The said affidavit is in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra). The bank transaction details of the respondent/wife clearly demonstrated that she is earning a sufficient amount for her livelihood and is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite or cost of litigation. The respondent/wife has not explained such a money transaction in her bank account, and the unexplained deposit in the bank account will be treated as her income. The learned family Court has not considered the said aspect of deposition of a huge amount in her bank account, which is not explained by her, and 4 treating the said amount as her income, she ought not to grant maintenance pendente lite. The financial status of the respondent/wife disentitle for the grant of maintenance pendente lite, yet the learned family Court granted the same. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reply upon the case of Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 2011 SCC Online Del 3841, and Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan v. The Income Tax Officer, decided on 12.09.2024 by the Division Bench of this Court in TAXC No. 179 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, affidavit submitted by the respondent/wife in compliance of the direction issued in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and also the source of income of the respondent/wife and financial status of the parties, granted Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum cost of litigation, which is strictly in accordance with law. She would further submit that the respondent/wife is an aspirant of competitive exams and not employed anywhere, and therefore, she has no independent source of income. A mere bank transaction is not enough to prove her earning capacity, and it is only the transactions made by her family members to meet monetary expenses, as the respondent wife was studying at Raipur, and she was dependent on her family 5 members. The petitioner/husband was having a monthly salary of Rs. 89,585/-, and he was capable of paying the maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. She would also submit that though the petitioner /husband in his affidavit states that he has various loans and is required to pay the EMI, no document showing any loan has been submitted by him before the learned Family Court. The consideration of the learned Family Court is based on the proper material produced before it, the income of the petitioner/husband and the status of the parties, which is justified and not required for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03.05.2023. The petitioner/husband is employed in Bangalore. The respondent/wife is residing at Surajpur, and she is prosecuting an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned Family Court, Surajpur. In the said proceeding, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite, which was partly allowed, and Rs. 20,000/- per month has been granted by the learned Family Court in her favour. The main objection of the petitioner/husband is that there was a huge money transaction in the bank account of the respondent/wife, which shows that she is a working woman and earning her 6 livelihood and not in need of maintenance pendente lite. He emphasized the bank account details of the respondent/wife. 8. In the present writ petition on 30.01.2026, the parties were directed to file their affidavit stating the assets held by both parties, movable and immovable, including their source of income and undivided share, if any, in the joint/ancestral property as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha. The petitioner/husband has filed his affidavit on 17.02.2026, and the respondent has filed her affidavit on 03.03.2026. The petitioner/husband, in Para F(3) of his affidavit disclosed his monthly income as Rs. 98,500/- and in Para J he discloses that his wife is having Master of Science in Agriculture, Plant and Molicular Biology and Biotechnology and was selected for Ph.D. and also disclosed that she posted her appointment letter in her WhatsApp on 28.11.2023 and her salary was Rs. 45,000/- and she is earning sufficient amount whereas the respondent/wife has disclosed in F(3) of her affidavit that he is having no monthly income and in Para (J) there is no any employment of her. Along with her affidavit, she also annexed her bank account statement, which she operated in SBI, Bhatgaon Branch, with account No. 31523200392, in which the balance of Rs. 17,553.95/- was there as on 19.02.2026. 9. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided for grant of maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the proceeding and according to the said provision, in any proceeding under the 7 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has not 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 ordered the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses the proceeding and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. 10. In the present case, the employment of the respondent is the disputed question of fact as to whether she was actually employed and earning her livelihood, or whether she was a student at the time when the bank transaction was made in her bank account. The claim of the petitioner/husband is that the huge money transaction was made in her bank account which shows her earning capacity and income whereas the respondent/wife defended that the said money transaction in her bank account was at the time when she was a student at Raipur when she imparting education and meet out her educational and personal expenses, her family members has transferred the amount in her bank account which cannot be considered to be source of her income. This disputed issue is the question of fact to be decided after recording evidence of the parties; however, during the proceeding, the source of income of the respondent/wife has not been proved. 8 11. The objective of the maintenance pendente lite and expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is primarily to provide financial assistance to the claimant’s spouse in order for them to carry on with the proceedings and maintain themselves. The provision of Section 24 is not intended to equalise the income of the spouses but rather to prevent one from suffering due to a lack of financial support during divorce or other proceedings. Where one spouse has no source of income or support to maintain themselves, the court has to make an order on the basis of the income of the other spouse. The true objective of Section 24 is to give financial assistance to the spouse who requires it and not to equalise the incomes of the spouses. 12. The Family Court has the discretion in passing an order regarding the maintenance pendente lite amount under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that a spouse may be required to pay to the other based on reasonable grounds. In order to exercise this discretion, the court considers the income of the spouse who has made the application for maintenance pendente lite and the income of the other spouse who is required to pay such interim maintenance and expenses. In the case of “Rajnesh v. Neha” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. It has been observed that:- “77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account 9 of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife. 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain 45 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate 10 quantum living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income able-bodied and has educational qualifications. 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home 47 The maintenance which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. 82. * * * 83. * * * 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde 48 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: (SCC OnLine Del para 8) "1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3. The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 11 6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act." 13. In the case of "Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde" 2007 SCC Online Del 622, the Delhi High Court has observed in its order that:- “8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are. "1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3. The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 12 6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non applicant. 9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded u/s. 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s. 24 of the Act." 14. In the case of "Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava" 2011 SCC Online Del 1651, the Delhi High Court further held that:- “12. It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the H duty of the courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one spouse lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a life of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency of divorce proceedings the parties should be able to maintain themselves and should be sufficiently I entitled to be represented in judicial proceedings. If in case the party is unable to do so on account of insufficient income, the other spouse shall be liable to pay the same. (See Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Others, reported at (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7). 13. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, reported at 140 (2007) DLT 16 has culled out 11 factors, which can be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Further it has been noticed by the Courts that the tendency of the spouses in proceedings for 13 maintenance is to not truthfully disclose their true income. However, in such cases some guess work on the part of Court is permissible. 15. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasbir Kaur (Smt.) (supra), has also recognized the fact that spouses in the proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully disclose ineir true income and therefore some guess work on the part of the Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court has also observed that "considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision". 16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list of factors, which are to be considered in guessing the income of the spouses, but the order based on guess work cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. While guessing the income of the spouse, when the sources of income are either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court can take into consideration amongst orthers the following factors: (i) Life style of the spouse; (ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage and the manner in which marriage was performed; (iii) Destination of honeymoon; (iv) Ownership of motor vehicles; (v) Household facilities; (vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help; (vii) Credit cards; (viii) Bank account details;Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava (G.S. Sistani, J.) (ix) Club Membership; (x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid; (xi) Property or properties purchased; (xii) Rental income; 14 (xiii) Amount of rent paid; (xiv) Amount spent on travel/ holiday; (xv) Locality of residence; (xvi) Number of mobile phones; (xvii) Qualification of spouse; (xviii) School(s) where the child or children are studying when parties were residing together; (xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses incurred; (xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular activities of children when parties were residing together; (xxi) Capacity to repay loan. 17. These are some of the factors, which may be considered by any court in guesstimating or having a rough idea or to guess the income of a spouse. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that one cannot ignore the fact that an Indian woman has been given an equal status under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and she has a right to live in dignity and according to the status of her husband. In this case, the stand taken by the respondent with respect to his earning is unbelievable.” 15. The learned family Court granted Rs. 20,000/- per month as the maintenance pendente lite to the wife. While awarding the maintenance pendente lite, the learned Family Court has considered the pleading of the parties and the documents annexed thereto, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra) and other surrounding circumstances, that is the financial capacity of the husband, income, the present cost of living, standard of living of the parties and awarded Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente 15 lite and Rs. 20,000/- as lump sum cost of litigation which in the opinion of this Court is not excessive or exorbitant. It is also to be noted here that the respondent/wife has already been examined before the learned family court Surajpur as PW-1 on 11.09.2025, and the proceedings of the case are at its advance stage of the trial. 16. The judgments of Puneet Kaur (supra) and Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan (supra) have different facts which are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner by those judgments. 17. Accordingly, I do not find any scope for interference in the present writ petition, and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok