1 CGHC010152402026 2026:CGHC:28063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 502 of 2026 1 - Kamal Choudhary S/o Padamashankar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Belmundi, Police Station and Tehsil Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Choudhary W/o Kamal Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village -Belmundi, Post Baloda Present Viillage Sirpur, Post Baloda Police Station and Tehsil Saraipali District -Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25-06-2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned order dated 18-02- 2026, passed by the learned Family Court Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali, District Saraipali in an unregistered case “Kamal Choudhary v. Sunita Choudhary” whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act, 1955’) has been partly allowed and amount of Rs.2000/- per month has been granted in favour of the respondent/wife and Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.07 19:04:23 +0530 2 Rs.3000/- as counsel’s fee and Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses one time have been granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 03-06-2020. However, dispute arose between them and they are residing separately. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent and applicant before the learned Family Court Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali. He filed an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1955 for grant of divorce. After service of notice upon the respondent she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 15,000/- per month and litigation expenses one time of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties partly allowed the application of the respondent and granted Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. He would further submit that the respondent is residing separately from the petitioner without sufficient reason. Earlier her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Family Court Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali, yet she has been granted maintenance pendente lite. Once it is held in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that the respondent is residing separately without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled for maintenance pendente lite. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application of the respondent may be rejected. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03-06-2020. The petitioner/husband is prosecuting an application for grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1955. It is alleged in the application that the respondent is having extra marital relation with another person. Earlier there was a family meeting in which a settlement between both these families for their separation arrived, however, the dispute again raised by the respondent and a report has been lodged by her. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/husband had filed an application for grant of divorce, in which the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 6. 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 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no 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 4 income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. 7. True it is, that the respondent’s application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Family Court, but in the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 she stated on affidavit that she is depend upon her parents and she has no independent source of income for her livelihood and for litigation expenses she requires money. The petitioner/husband is having double cropped agricultural land at Village Belmundi from which he is earning Rs.15,00,000/- per year and he is able and capable to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance pendente lite. 8. 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. 5 9. 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 and Another”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, 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 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. 6 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 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 7 quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” 10. 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. 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. 8 11. The amount awarded u/s. 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s. 24 of the Act." 11. 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 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 9 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; (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; 10 (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.” 12. The learned family Court granted Rs. 2,000/- per month as the maintenance pendente lite to the respondent/wife. By awarding the maintenance pendente lite, the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed thereto and other surrounding circumstances, i.e., the financial capacity of the husband, income, the present cost of living, standard of living of the parties and has granted Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 3,000/- as one time counsel fee and Rs.3,000/- as one time litigation expenses. 13. In view of the above and also the aforesaid judgments of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (supra) and Shri Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court which warrants interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11 14. However, considering the fact that the case is fixed for recording plaintiff’s evidence, the learned Family Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. It is expected that the parties shall also cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the case and shall not take unnecessary adjournment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil