1 CGHC010265842026 2026:CGHC:29502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 828 of 2026 Smt Jagriti Verma W/o Lal Bahadur Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o H.No. 1355, Manju Sadan, Indira Para Ward, Bhilai- 03, Charoda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Lal Bahadur Verma S/o Kedar Singh Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o H.No. 1355, Manju Sadan, Indira Para Ward, Bhilai- 03, Charoda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapan K. Chandra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned Third Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Durg in Case No. 465A/2024 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR 2 whereby the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been partly allowed and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses at one time was granted to the petitioner, however, the application with respect to the maintenance pendente lite is rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the non-applicant before the learned Family Court where the present respondent-husband is prosecuting an application under Section 13(1) (1-A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the proceeding, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses and claimed Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application with respect to grant of maintenance pendente lite of the petitioner and granted only Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses at one time. He would further submit that the petitioner is the housewife, however, in her name a firm, Yashaswi Infrastructure is running by the respondent- husband and all its income is being taken by the respondent-husband. He would further submit that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Udyam Registration Certificate and owner of the said Yashaswi Infrastructure firm are in the name of the petitioner but have not examined its true owner. The petitioner is a housewife and having no source of her income and the said firm, in fact, is run by the respondent-husband, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for maintenance pendente lite but her application has been rejected. In view of the documents annexed with the petition, 3 the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be granted maintenance pendente lite as claimed by her before the learned Family Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. When the petitioner herself could not dispute that the Udyam Registration Certificate and the owner's name of the said Yashaswi Infrastructure is in the name of the present petitioner and the said firm is running, the petitioner ought to have filed the documents that the respondent husband is running the said firm and not by the petitioner. Even if, it is in the name of the petitioner, she could have raised objection regarding authorization of the respondent-husband with respect to running of the said firm or the monetary transaction with the other person concerned, however, the petitioner could not dispute the said fact and even no document has been filed by her except the pleadings of the parties made before the learned Family Court. One can understand that if a person is registered under the Udyam Registration and running a Yashaswi Infrastructure, the person should have filed her income tax return, other official documents of its taxation and she could file the documents to show that it was actually run by the respondent-husband and not by the petitioner but she could not annex those documents in the present writ petition. When the petitioner is admittedly registered under the Udyam Registration Certificate and running a firm in the name of Yashaswi Infrastructure and in absence of any rebuttal of its running firm, the rejection of her application for grant of maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 4 5. The application filed by the respondent-husband is still pending before the learned Family Court and the petitioner can very well raise her defense there about the said Udyam Registration Certificate and running of Yashaswi Infrastructure. However, at present, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no source of her income, particularly when she is having the Udyam Registration Certificate and Yashaswi Infrastructure in her own name. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in passing the order of the learned Family Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit