[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar vs Richa Jain (2025:Rj-Jd:53250-Db) on 9 December, 2025
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JD:53250-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3649/2025
Mukesh Kumar S/o Mithulal Lohar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Purani Pind, Tehsil Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh,
Currently Residing At House No. 5, B Block, Street No. 2, New
Polo Ground, Saheli Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Richa Jain W/o Mukesh Kumar Lohar, D/o Tarachand Jain,
R/o Mansa Wali Vas, Sheoganj, Tehsil Sheoganj, District
Sirohi, Rajasthan.
2. Vidhi D/o Mukesh Kumar, Minor Through Natural Guardian
Mother Richa Jain, W/o Mukesh Kumar Lohar, D/o
Tarachand Jain, R/o Mansa Wali Vas, Sheoganj, Tehsil
Sheoganj, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Apeksha Chhangani through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
09/12/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
20.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, Sirohi (hereinafter to be
referred as 'the Family Court'), whereby the application preferred
by the respondents under Sections 24 & 26 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1955') has
been allowed and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month has been
awarded to be paid by the appellant towards the interim
maintenance pendente lite in favour of his wife and daughter, from
the date of filing such application and during the pendency of main
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:04:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53250-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-3649/2025]
litigation under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. In addition to above,
lump sum litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.
500/- per hearing for attending the proceedings have also been
directed to be paid to the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
there is no factual foundation for arriving at a conclusion that the
appellant is earning Rs.20-30,000/- per month from the
profession of photography. Learned counsel further submits that
the amount awarded by the learned Family Court vide its order
dated 20.08.2025 is exorbitantly high. Learned counsel submits
that the amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellant will be
unnecessary burden on the appellant and the life of the appellant
will become miserable. She, therefore, prays that the present
appeal may be allowed and the order dated 20.08.2025 may be
quashed and set aside.
4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. Needless to mention here that the objective of maintenance
pendente lite and expenses under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 as
well interim maintenance under Section 26 of the Act of 1955 is to
provide financial assistance to the spouse/child in order to enable
them to carry on with the proceedings and to maintain themselves
during the proceedings.
6. The primary condition for the grant of interim maintenance is
that one party to the proceedings does not have sufficient
independent income for his/her support for day to day activities
and the required expenses of the proceedings.
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:04:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53250-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-3649/2025]
7. On scrutiny of the impugned order, it would reveal that the
respondent-wife came out with specific plea that she did not have
sufficient means either to maintain herself during the main
litigation under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 or even to bear the
litigation cost, however, the appellant utterly failed to place any
concrete evidence on record to controvert such categorical
statement of the respondent-wife.
8. Learned Family Court has taken into consideration the entire
facts placed before it. We also find that the Family Court has also
not blindly relied upon the averments made by the respondent-
wife in relation to the income of the appellant. Although, the
averment in the application was also to the extent that the
appellant is having 50-60 Bighas of agricultural land from which,
he is earning Rs.15 Lakh per year, however, learned Family Court
has rejected the said contention as there was no documentary
record on the basis of which, it could be said that the appellant is
earning Rs.15 Lakh from the agricultural land. Similarly, the
averments made by the respondent regarding earnings of the
appellant up to Rs. 6,00,000/- per month through photography
was also not believed upon by the learned Family Court in absence
of any such proof.
9. In the reply to the application, it was admitted by the
appellant that he is in the profession of photography and is
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, such assertion of the
appellant was also unsupported by any documentary evidence
such as income tax returns, bills, vouchers etc.
10. We noted that the appellant is in the profession of
photography in District Udaipur, therefore, learned Family Court
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:04:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53250-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-3649/2025]
has rightly considered that the appellant is earning
Rs.20-30,000/- per month, therefore, for maintaining his wife and
daughter, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month has been awarded.
With a monthly income in that range, the award of Rs. 10,000/-
per month for maintaining his wife and daughter shows a balanced
approach. It neither places an undue burden on the appellant, nor
devices adequate maintenance support during the proceedings to
the respondents.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded
by the learned Family Court appears to be justified and in no
manner can be said to be excessive and exorbitant.
12. Therefore, the present Civil Misc. Appeal being devoid of any
force is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
4-Nitin-Manoj Narwani/-
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 02:04:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
