Uttarakhand High Court
2 November vs Shivangi on 12 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:9963
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3129 of 2025
12 November, 2025
Anuj Arya --Petitioner
Versus
Shivangi --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Ishita Dhaila, learned counsel for petitioner-
husband.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment and order dated 14.10.2025
(wrongly transcribed as 30.10.2025 in the writ petition)
passed in Case No.961 of 2024 Anuj Arya Vs. Shivangi,
passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-First,
Family Court, Dehradun, whereby, the application
17C2 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act,
1955, moved by respondent-wife, was partly allowed
and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay
Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.8,000/- as
interim maintenance per month from the date of filing
that application.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
marriage of petitioner-husband and respondent-wife
was solemnized on 06.03.2024 as per Hindu rites and
rituals. Just after the marriage, petitioner-husband was
subjected to verbal, emotional, economic, mental
abuse/harassment at the behest of respondent.
Petitioner-husband and respondent-wife are living
separately since 05.07.2024 and in pursuant to
2025:UHC:9963
matrimonial disputes between them, petitioner filed a
case under Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the respondent
as Case No.356 of 2024 Anuj Arya Vs. Shivangi, in the
Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun. To
which, respondent-wife filed an application for interim
maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages
Act, 1955, which is registered as Case No.961 of 2024
Anuj Arya Vs. Shivangi. The said application was partly
allowed vide order dated 14.10.2025 by learned
Additional Principal Judge-First, Family Court,
Dehradun, and Rs.8,000/- per month was granted in
favour of respondent-wife from the date of filing that
application plus litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
Thus, the petitioner-husband is before this Court by
challenging the order dated 14.10.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that learned Principal Judge-First, Family Court,
Dehradun, without assessing the income of petitioner-
husband and without understanding his liabilities
passed the order dated 14.10.2025 and directed to pay
interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/-per month to
respondent-wife. She further submits that respondent
had not made any effort to sustain her marital life with
the petitioner and deserted him at her own will without
any justified reason, hence, the respondent-wife is not
liable to be paid any amount and the order impugned is
illegal in nature.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the respondent is well educated and
has a salary package of Rs.35,000/- per month and
after deductions, she got Rs.24-25,000/- per month in
2025:UHC:9963
hand at her ICICI bank account, which she herself has
disclosed in her affidavit. Thus, the learned Court below
had committed a gross error of law and facts and failed
to consider the case in right perspective. It is also
contended by her that petitioner-husband has liability
of his parents and his sister who recently succumbed to
brain tumor.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have gone through the impugned order
as well as the entire record available on record. There is
no illegality in the impugned order dated 14.10.2025
passed by the learned Court below i.e. learned Principal
Judge-First, Family Court, Dehradun. Since, the Case
No.961 of 2024 Anuj Arya Vs. Shivangi, is pending
before the learned Family Court and lis should be
generally decided on merits, this Court thinks that
there is no illegality committed by the learned Court
below while granting interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/-
per month to respondent-wife, therefore, no interference
is required exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is a
maintenance pendent lite and would continue till final
decision of the case.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails
and is dismissed in-limine.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
12.11.2025
PN
