[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Archana @ Pinki vs Pankaj on 21 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1879
1 MP-3856-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 3856 of 2025
SMT. ARCHANA @ PINKI
Versus
PANKAJ
Appearance:
Ms. Megha Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Navneet Kishore Verma with Shri Ohiniyat Kishore - Advocate
for respondent.
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of parties.
This Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the impugned order dated 16/05/2025 passed by Additional District
Judge, Tarana, District Ujjain (M.P.) to the Court of District Judge Judge,
Tarana in MJC GW/3/2022, whereby an application filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
for short referred as, 'CPC') for grant of interim maintenance, has been
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the
petitioner is getting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in the proceedings
which have already been concluded under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'Cr.P.C.'), but since the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1879
2 MP-3856-2025
petitioner is suffering from Abdominal Lump and also from Thyroid and for
operation of that an amount of Rs.5,000/- is estimated to be incurred as
expenditure, therefore, she has filed an application under Section 18 of the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter for short referred
as, 'Act of 1956'), which has been dismissed giving rise to the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the Court
below is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the petitioner has not gone
for enhancement in the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., but she is entitled to file separate proceedings under Section 18 of
the Act of 1956, which she has already filed and in under that section she
claimed interim maintenance to get herself treated properly, which has been
misread by the learned trial Court and application filed under Section 151 of
CPC has been dismissed as it was for enhancement of the maintenance
amount, which was already given under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. To buttress
her submission, learned counsel place reliance on the order by the Apex
Court in the case of Purusottam Mahakud Vs. Smt. Annapurna Mahakud and
Another reported in 1996 SCC OnLine Ori 22 . On these submissions, she
prays for setting aside the impugned order remanding the matter for
considering the application filed for additional / interim maintenance afresh.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
supporting the impugned order submits that no illegality has been committed
by the trial Court in dismissing the application filed for additional / interim
maintenance under Section 18 of the Act of 1956 as there is no provision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1879
3 MP-3856-2025
under Section 18 to grant of interim maintenance and Section 151 of CPC
cannot be invoked for that purpose. For this, he has relied upon para 27 and
28 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of MY Palace
Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh & Ors. passed in Civil
Appeal No.5784 of 2022 on August 23, 2022.
5. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned
counsel for either side and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioner / wife of respondent is living
separately. She has been allowed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in the
proceedings initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. v i d e order dated
11/04/2025 passed in MJCR No.117/2021, which are already concluded.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that learned
Court below appears to have misread the interim maintenance application
and it appears to have been dismissed treating it as for enhancement of the
amount as already awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. There is a
provision under Section 18 of Act of 1956 for maintaining the wife by the
husband, therefore, she can claim maintenance under that section also.
8. In the case of Savitri Bai Vs. Govind Singh Rawat reported in AIR
1986 SC 984, the Apex Court has held that where there is a provision for
maintenance, certainly the Court has power to grant interim maintenance,
therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that there is no
provision for interim maintenance is not sustainable.
9. Here it is clarified that even if any application has contained any
wrong provision, even then the relief available under the law can be given
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1879
4 MP-3856-2025
and application cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of mentioning of
the wrong provision.
10. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order passed by the Court below deserves to be and is hereby set
aside. Learned Court below is directed to decide the application for grant of
interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act of 1956 afresh in
accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of 01
month from the date certified copy of order of this Court is filed before the
trial Court. While passing the order, the Court below will also take into
consideration that the wife is already getting maintenance under Section 125
of Cr.P.C. as mentioned hereinabove and before passing the order, the Court
can also seek affidavits from both the parties with regard to their assets and
liabilities as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 .
11. With the aforesaid, Misc. Petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
