1 2026:CGHC:23862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 604 of 2026 Rakesh Jangid S/o- Shri Onkarmal Jangide Aged About 31 Years R/o- Village- Jatho Ka Mahalla, Palthana, Tahsil And Thana- Ghod, District- Sikar (Rajasthan) And Plot No. B-30, C/o- Ratanlal Jangide, Basant Vihar Colony, Sikar, Rajasthan. (Father Name And Add. Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Rekha Jangide W/o- Shri Rakesh Jangid, Aged About 30 Years R/o- Near Ram Janki Mandir, Sonkarpara, Lakhenagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.17 11:26:45 +0530 2 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Case No. 215/2024, whereby the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent whose marriage has been solemnized on 26.04.2018. Out of their wedlock, their son has been born on 21.09.2019 who is presently residing alongwith the respondent-wife. After sometime of marriage, the dispute arose between the parties and presently, the parties are residing separately. The respondent-wife has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Raipur for grant of divorce which has been registered as case No. 215/2024. In the proceedings of the case, the petitioner-husband has filed an application on 02.09.2025 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and for litigation expenses, in the said application he averred that he is unable to earn anything whereas the respondent-wife is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month, he is very less literate person and unable to work and he is also have no source of his income to defend himself in the Court cases, therefore, an amount of Rs. 55,000/- per month may be granted in his favour as maintenance pendente lite from the respondent-wife and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses for each date of hearing for which he was compelled to appear in the proceeding at Raipur as he is the resident of District – Sikar (Rajasthan). The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Family Court on 26.02.2026 which is under challenge in the 3 present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent- wife is prosecuting the case at Raipur and the petitioner is resident of District – Sikar (Rajasthan), he is required to appear in the proceeding and since he is unable to earn his livelihood, he is required to incur huge expenses in his travelling from Rajasthan to Raipur and to defend himself for appointing a counsel in trial Court for which an amount of Rs. 55,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- in each date of hearing may be granted to him. The respondent-wife is well educated lady having income of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and she is able to pay the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the petitioner-husband. Learned Family Court after considering that since the order of grant of maintenance has been passed against the petitioner, he is able to pay the maintenance to the wife, and therefore, he is not entitled for any maintenance pendente lite or litigation expenses. He would further submit that the petitioner is very less literate person and could not earn his livelihood and he went in depression by the conduct of the respondent-wife, and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the application of the petitioner filed before the learned Family Court, Raipur for grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it transpires that the 4 petitioner alleged that the respondent-wife is earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and she is able to pay the maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner and the petitioner is less literate person, could not earn anything and could not defend himself in the case for want of sufficient fund. The respondent-wife has replied in the said application with the averment that the learned Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondent-wife and their son. The respondent-wife has also averred in her reply that the petitioner is an able bodied person and does not suffer from any ailment, he is well earning person and only to avoid his liability to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife and their son, he is taking stand that he is less literate person and is not earning anything. The learned Family Court has considered that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence with respect to the income or the profession of the respondent-wife and it is only statement made by him whereas the learned Family Court has granted maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife and their son, it clearly demonstrates that the respondent-wife is not able to maintain herself and for that reason, an order of grant of maintenance has been passed in her favour, therefore, it can not be said that the wife is well educated and well earned person and able to give maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner-husband. 6. In the present writ petition also, except the statement made by him, the petitioner could not substantiate his submission that the respondent- wife is well educated and is earing more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from her profession. In absence of certain averment of evidence, I do 5 not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court by setting aside the same and directing for payment of maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner- husband. 7. The present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit