1 2026:CGHC:23518-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No.192 of 2026 Ashish Rai S/o Rajesh Rai Aged About 34 Years R/o Beside Polytechnique College, Namna Kala, Ambikapur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Smt. Anjali Rai W/o Ashish Rai D/o Radha Krishna Rai Aged About 35 Years Occupation Government Teacher R/o 1- C Colony, Quarter No. 11, Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur Tahsil And District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate through Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, through Video Conferencing. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.06.03 12:20:23 +0530 2 Marriage Act, 1955, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.52-A/2025, whereby the learned Family Court erroneously interpreted the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and granted Rs.3,000/- as onetime litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- per month for the purpose of transportation and food expenses. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was solemnized on 09.02.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Ambikapur. It is pleaded by the appellant that the appellant has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act of 1955), in which, after receiving the notice, the respondent-wife appeared and filed her written statement and denied the claim made in the plaint. During the pendency of the Civil Suit bearing No. 52-A/2025, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses on the ground that the appellant is having good source of income. The appellant/husband filed written statement to the said application filed by the respondent/wife and strongly denied the claim therein. Furthermore, the appellant also stated that the respondent/wife is a Government Teacher and she was earning around Rs.70,000/- per month, therefore, the provision of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 will not be applicable in the case of respondent/wife. Moreover, during the hearing of Section 24 application, the appellant produced cogent evidence (Salary Slips) obtain through the Right to Information Act,2005 to prove that the respondent/wife is gainfully employed and earning a monthly salary of ₹71,482/-. As a result thereof, 3 despite the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2026, having observed that the respondent/wife is capable to maintain herself, it erroneously interpreted the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 and partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and granted Rs.3,000/- one time litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- per month for transportation and food expenses. 4. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error of law as well as on facts as the income of the respondent/wife is much higher than that of the appellant/husband. Further, there is no one dependent upon the respondent/wife. The purpose of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide support an assistance to the wife financially but in the present case, the respondent/wife does not need any financial assistance as she is herself capable of managing her financial needs being a government servant earning a good salary. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly interpreted the income of the respondent-wife and thereby failing the fundamental test of “inability to maintain oneself” as provided under the statute, therefore, the maintenance as has been granted to the respondent-wife vide order dated 10.03.2026, is on higher side and liable to be set aside. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 6. There is no dispute that both the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife are Government servants. The appellant/ husband is working as a contractual Ayush Medical Officer and is earning approximately Rs.25,700/- per month, whereas the respondent/wife is serving as a Teacher and earning approximately Rs.70,000/- per month. 4 Though the income of the respondent/wife is admittedly higher than that of the appellant/husband, the learned Family Court has awarded only a nominal amount of Rs.3,000/- towards one-time litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- per month towards transportation and food expenses, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary, or disproportionate. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is not in the nature of substantive maintenance for sustenance, but merely a limited allowance towards litigation-related and incidental expenses incurred during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. Such an award cannot be viewed in a rigid or hyper-technical manner so as to defeat the underlying object of Section 24 of the Act of 1955, which is to ensure effective participation of the parties in the proceedings and to avoid financial hardship in prosecuting or defending matrimonial litigation. 8. Further, the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and material available on record, exercised its discretion in awarding only a modest amount. Unless the exercise of such discretion is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled principles of law, interference by the appellate Court is unwarranted, particularly when no substantial prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant. 9. That apart, the appellant/husband has failed to demonstrate as to how the grant of a meagre amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards transportation and food expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses has resulted in any miscarriage of justice or grave financial burden upon him warranting interference in appeal. Mere dissatisfaction with the quantum awarded, absent demonstrable illegality or perversity, 5 cannot constitute a valid ground for appellate interference. 10. Moreover, matrimonial proceedings often require repeated appearances before the Court and entail incidental expenditure towards commuting, meals, and related necessities. Therefore, the limited assistance granted by the learned Family Court appears to be reasonable and intended only to facilitate proper participation in the proceedings. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality, infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Tumane