IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that interim maintenance must be reasonable and based on the financial needs of the petitioner, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the divorce proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The appellant has preferred this First Appeal (MAT) against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Case No. 251A/2023 whereby the learned Family Court while deciding the application preferred by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite has granted Rs. 100/- to the appellant herein for each appearance and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- and has not awarded any amount under the head of maintenance.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while considering the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is the bounden duty of the Family Court to consider and pass a speaking order with regard to the maintenance pendente lite. The impugned order has been passed contrary to the spirit and mandate of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which aims to support either of the spouse during the pendency of the proceeding under the said Act. The appellant’s application dated 12.02.2024 was duly supported by an affidavit and the appellant had categorically stated that she has no independent source of income sufficient for her to live and bear the cost of living and further for the cost of proceeding. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that she requires monetary help to sustain her living and to contest the concerned proceeding and it was also specifically pleaded by the appellant that respondent is gainfully employed and earns substantial income of Rs. 30 lakhs per annum and also, has ancillary sources of income and these facts were never denied by the respondent in affidavit.

3. The learned trial Court relied upon the submission made by the respondent which was only oral and not supported by the affidavit. So, order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and the learned trial Court also awarded cost which is insufficient for daily expenses. As such, the impugned order is liable to be modified.

4. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Burman vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman), (2009) 1 SCC 398.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

6. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.

7. It is evident that no speaking order has been passed with regard to the maintenance pendente lite. The learned trial Court only awarded Rs. 100/- for each appearance in the Court and Rs. 3,000/- for litigation cost.

8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under:

“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses on the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”

9. Hon’ble Apex Court held in the matter of Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh and Another, (2003) 10 SCC 228 in paragraph 08 which reads as under:

“8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the court in any proceeding under the Act, if it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of any one of them order the other party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to also the income of both the petitioner and the respondent. Once the High Court, in this case, has come to the conclusion that the appellant wife herein has to be provided with the litigation expenses a