Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Anand Jha vs Smt. Abhilasha Sharma Jha on 6 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20592-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 5 of 2025
1 - Amit Anand Jha Aged About 44 Years S/o Shri Parmanand Jha R/o Beside Aalmari
Factory Tarun Nagar, Kushalpur, Raipur, Puranibasti Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Abhilasha Sharma Jha W/o Amit Anand Jha Aged About 40 Years R/o Beside
Aalmari Factory Tarun Nagar, Kushalpur, Raipur, Puranibasti Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (Presently Residing At H.D.D. 1- 266, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate
DB: Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
Per, Rajani Dubey, Judge
06.05.2025
1. Heard on I. A. No.2/2020, application for condonation of delay.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 411 days is condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
4. The instant appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed
by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated
24.07.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned 2 nd Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in MJC No. 749/2022 whereby the appellant has been
ordered to pay to the respondent interim maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000/- per
month from the date of passing of order i.e. 24.07.2023.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is legally wedded wife of appellant and
their marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2022 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Soon
after the marriage, respondent started quarreling with the appellant and pressurized
him to live separately from his parents. The appellant refused to do so, in
consequence of which, respondent left her matrimonial house and started residing at
her maternal house, therefore, application under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court
Raipur for annulling the marriage.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 24.07.2023
passed by the learned trial Court whereby the interim maintenance application of
respondent/wife was allowed, is erroneous and illegal. The respondent/wife herself
has made two separate profiles where she has specifically mentioned that she was
working in a private Sector Firm and was earning Rs. 3-4 lacs and Rs. 7-8 lacs
annually and thereby she is competent only to maintain herself and hence she is not
eligible for grant of maintenance. The impugned order was passed in gross violation
of settled principles of law and without appreciating the fact that the appellant/
husband himself has preferred an application under Section 12 (1) (a) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent/wife on the ground of impotence and
impugned order has been passed ignoring facts and circumstances of the case. The
learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent has failed to bring
any document to establish the salary and earning of the appellant, therefore, the
impugned order is perverse and bad in law, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment impugned and submits
that learned trial Court minutely appreciated the documents filed by both the parties
and passed the impugned order. Hence, this appeal without any merit liable to be
dismissed at the motion stage itself.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the judgment
impugned.
9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant/ husband has filed
application under Section 12 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the
respondent/ wife for declaring their marriage as null and void. During pendency of
this case, respondent/ wife filed application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act
and by the impugned order the learned Family Court allowed the application of the
respondent/wife and directed the appellant/ husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as
maintenance and Rs.5000/- per month as litigation expenses.
10. The main objection of the appellant is that the learned trial Court did not appreciate
the documents filed by the husband in which it is clear that the income of respondent/
wife is shown as Rs. 7-8 lacs and Rs.3-4 lacs per annum.
11. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is provide as under:-
" 24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings- Where in any
proceeding under this Act 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, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the
proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the
petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to
be reasonable.
1[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding
and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of
within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the
case may be.]"
12. It is clear from this Section that to decide the application under Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act, learned trial Court has to see prima facie relationship between the
parties and earning capacity of both the parties. The learned trial Court after
appreciating the documents filed by both the parties passed the impugned order, and
thus learned Family Court rightly allowed the application for interim maintenance as
filed by the respondent/wife based on the facts available on record, therefore, we are
not inclined to interfere with this impugned order.
13. In consequence, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself. However, it is
directed that the learned Family Court shall decide the case within 6 months from the
date of this order and if the case will not be decided within the aforesaid stipulated
period and also if the appellant/ husband is not found responsible for delay so caused,
then the learned Family Court shall reconsider the interim maintenance application of
the respondent/ wife.
14. With this direction, the appeal is thus dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
PARUL
MITTAL
Parul
