Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooja Thakur vs Abhijeet Singh Baghel on 15 April, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
MP-675 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 675 of 2025
POOJA THAKUR
Versus
ABHIJEET SINGH BAGHEL
Appearance:
Shri Rohan Harne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the respondent 1.
ORDER
This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner/wife
challenging the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by 2nd Addl. Principal
Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, in RCSHM no.1435/2022 whereby in the
pending proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter in short 'the Act') instituted by respondent/husband, Family
Court has rejected the petitioner/wife's application under Section 24 of the
Act even without recording necessary findings required for decision of
application for maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although prior to
and after her marriage, the petitioner was working as a teacher, but on the
date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, the petitioner
due to strain relationship between the parties, was constrained to leave the
job, therefore, on the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the
Act, the petitioner was not having any income and she in the affidavit filed
before the Family Court, rightly shown her income as Nil. He submits that
in the affidavit filed by the respondent/husband, he has shown his income as
MP-675 OF 2025
Rs.3,04,130/- p.a., but he is involved in film production, therefore, he is
having sufficient and handsome income and while passing the impugned
order, Family Court even without recording finding about income of the
parties, has committed illegality in dismissing the application. Placing
reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (para 90), he submits that even if the
petitioner/wife is having some income, that itself cannot be a ground to
dismiss the application. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the
misc. petition as well as application under Section 24 of the Act.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband supports the
impugned order and prays for dismissal of the misc. petition with the further
submissions that even prior to and after her marriage, petitioner being
teacher in private coaching institute, was getting salary of Rs.4,73,196/- p.a.,
therefore, taking this aspect of the matter and in absence of any resignation
letter, Family Court has rightly dismissed the application holding that the
petitioner/wife is having sufficient income to maintain herself. In support of
his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench
decision of High Court of Delhi, in MAT. APP.(F.C.) 78/2023 decided on
11.10.2023.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of impugned order shows that while rejecting the
application under Section 24 of the Act, Family Court has not recorded any
finding in respect of income of the parties and for want of resignation letter
of the petitioner/wife from Parag Tutorials, and as she did not challenge the
order dated 11.07.2023 passed in the proceedings under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., has presumed that the petitioner/wife is having sufficient income to
maintain herself and dismissed the application.
MP-675 OF 2025
6. Apparently, Family Court has not taken into consideration the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). Relevant
paragraph 90 of which, is as under:-
"90. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from
being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this
issue in the following judgments.
90.1. In Shailja & Anr. vs. Khobbanna,[ (2018) 12 SCC 199 ] this Court held that merely
because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the
income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the
lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC
316. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. Vipul
Lakhanpal vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC Online HP 1252.
See also Decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh vs. S. Deepa & Ors., 2016
Cri LJ 4794.
90.2 In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a
postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a
contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial
assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that
merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her
claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale vs. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020
SCC Online Bom 694, while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra),
held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever
meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position
to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander
Prakash Bodhraj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The onus is on
the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show
that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons
beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an
adverse inference may be drawn by the Court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited the
judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the
husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife."
7. Again in the case of Parvin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain, 2024 INSC
96, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the factors to be looked into while
passing the order on the application for maintenance pendente lite. Relevant
paragraph 32 of which, is as under :-
MP-675 OF 2025
"32. This Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra), provided a comprehensive
criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent
alimony. This judgment lays down an elaborate and comprehensive framework necessary
for deciding the amount of maintenance in all matrimonial proceedings, with specific
emphasis on permanent alimony. The same has been reiterated by this Court in Kiran
Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (Supra). The primary objective of granting permanent
alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and means
after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the interests of the dependent
spouse and does not provide for penalizing the other spouse in the process. The Court in
these two judgments laid down the following factors to be looked into:
i. Status of the parties, social and financial.
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.
iii. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant.
v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and
liabilities.
These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric. These among such other similar
factors become relevant."
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in absence of necessary
findings of the Family Court, especially with regard to income of the
parties, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside with the
direction to Family Court to decide the application under Section 24 of the
Act afresh taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and Parvin Kumar Jain
(supra).
9. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed and disposed off.
10. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=062bc13272373e2768c883468695ccafcb8f7bf9db7cbd37ad359bc82069bcdf, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh, serialNumber=A08AE25ACEFF18C7A0F94698E1BC6A3CCF1DC9654549200EB1BC8E5DDF6349B0, cn=PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Date: 2025.04.16 11:02:04 +05'30'
MP-675 OF 2025
