IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C MP(M) No. 1039 of 2026 Decided on: 31 .08 .2026 Suresh Kumar …….applicant/appellant Versus Smt. Veena Devi … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the applicant/appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the non-applicant/ : Mr. Rishabh Negi, Advocate. respondent Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1039 of 2026 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 32 days’ delay in filing the appeal. 2. Non-applicant stands served. Mr. Rishabh Negi, leaned Counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of the non-applicant by way of filing a memo of appearance. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application, as this Court is satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not intentional, this application is allowed and delay of 32 days’ in filing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 42 of 2026 4. Be registered. Notice. Mr. Rishabh Negi, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 5. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 06.12.2025, in terms whereof, the learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Ghumarwin, has directed the appellant herein to pay an amount of 3,000 per month to the ₹ respondent from the date of filing of the application towards interim maintenance of the respondent alongwith litigation expenses assessed as 5,000/-. ₹ 6. As the impugned order is short, the same is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “This order would dispose of present application filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance pendente lite till the final disposal of main petition. So far as the relation inter-se the parties is concerned, this is not in dispute that applicant is wife of respondent and out of wedlock one son born to them. As per the applicant, false and frivolous petition has been filed by the respondent in order to get divorce from her on concocted grounds. Even, the father of applicant had also expired and she is unable to maintain herself. Respondent is labourer and earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. Disposal of main petition would take some time, hence, it 3 wasprayed to grant maintenance pendente lite, as such. 2. Respondent had denied the allegations levelled and averred that applicant had left the matrimonial home on her own, therefore, not entitled for monthly maintenance. Moreover, he is suffering from permanent disability. 3. Parties also filed their respective affidavits regarding the assets and liabilities. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. 5. This is not in dispute that applicant is wife of respondent and also having a son. The allegations and cross-allegations have been levelled by the parties against each other, but, certainly, which one are true can only be determined, when, the evidence would be led and the case is decided on merits. At this stage, it is only to be seen, as to whether the applicant is entitled for ad-interim maintenance or not. 6. From the affidavit of applicant, it cannot be made out that she has any independent source of income. The disposal of main petition would take sometime. She, certainly, will have to incur expenses on herself as well as on her son, who is school going child, therefore, may need money for that purpose. The factum regarding leaving of matrimonial house by applicant on her own can also be considered while deciding the main petition. At this stage, the respondent cannot wriggle out of his liability to maintain the 4 applicants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others, AIR 2021 SC 569" has elaborately discussed the criteria for determination of maintenance allowance. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, affidavits so filed and the criteria so laid, it would be appropriate if. Rs.3.000/- per month awarded to applicant, as interim maintenance. 7. Hence, the application for interim maintenance allowed and respondent is directed to pay Rs.3,000/-month to applicant (Three Thousand only) from the date filing of this application i.e. 06-12- 2024, till disposal of main petition alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only). 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the interim order, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order. It cannot be disputed before this Court that the respondent not only has to look after herself, but also a son of the appellant. In this backdrop, by no stretch of imagination can an amount of 3,000 awarded as interim maintenance be said to be ₹ excessive. 8. The application is accordingly disposed of in terms of observations made herein above. The file after it's due completion, be tagged with the main case file for record. Now, in main petition, to come up rejoinder, if any, and for consideration on issues for 15-01-2026.” 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we do not find any illegality or 5 perversity therein. It could not be disputed before this Court that respondent not only has to look after herself but also has to look after their school going son and she has no independent source of income. In this backdrop, by no stretch of imagination, amount of Rs.3,000/-, awarded as interim maintenance, can be said to be an amount on excessive side. 8. The contention of the learned Counsel that the appellant is permanently disabled with 85% loco-motor disability does not impress us for the reasons that as observed herein above, amount of 3,000/- per month as maintenance for the wife and child, by no ₹ stretch of imagination, can be said to be an excessive amount and the appellant otherwise also owes an obligation to look after his wife and son, who is a school going child. Therefore, in light of the above observations, as we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge August 31 , 2026 (narender)