Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avanish Sharma vs Mini Sharma on 21 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6699
1 MP-1335-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1335 of 2025
AVANISH SHARMA
Versus
MINI SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Satendra Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed against order dated 19.11.2024 passed by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.746/2023
HMA by which maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2500/- per month has
been awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that during COVID-19
pandemic petitioner lost his job. However, he fairly conceded that
petitioner was blessed with child sometimes in the year 2021-2022.
3. Be that whatever it may be.
4. It is not the case of petitioner that he is not an able-bodied
person.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha And
Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6699
2 MP-1335-2025
"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 of maintenance to be paid. The court
must have due regard to the standard of living of the
husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high
costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not
possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve
him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-
bodied and has educational qualifications."
6 . Since meagre income of husband cannot be a ground to deny
maintenance to the wife and even otherwise the Court below has
awarded a meagre amount of Rs.2500/- per month by way of
maintenance pendente lite, this Court is of considered opinion that no
case is made out warranting interference.
7. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the
order of payment of maintenance pendente lite may be made enforceable
from the date of order.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has held as
under :-
"113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions
to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders
passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be
awarded from the date on which the application was made
before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance
must date back to the date of filing the application, since the
period during which the maintenance proceedings remained
pending is not within the control of the applicant.
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be
awarded from the date of filing the application for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6699
3 MP-1335-2025
maintenance, as held in Part B-IV above."
9. In the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Ranesh (supra) in paras 113 and 131, the maintenance has to be
paid from the date of application. Accordingly, no case is made out
warranting interference.
10. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
