The court upheld the trial court's decision granting interim maintenance, highlighting the need for financial support during divorce proceedings when independent income is lacking.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. R. Boruah, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sanjib Hazarika, impugning the order dated 18.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaon, Assam in Misc(J) Case No.27/2022, in connection with Matrimonial Suit (Divorce) No.44/2021, whereby on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner was directed to pay an interim maintenance allowance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) in total to the respondent and her minor children as well as an amount of Rs. 6,00/- (Rupees six hundred) per month towards the expenses of the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, has instituted a divorce case seeking divorce from the present petitioner before the court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaon, which was registered as Matrimonial Suit (Divorce) No.44/2021. He further submits that the present petitioner, on the other hand has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of the conjugal rights. He further submits that in the said divorce case, the respondent had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceedings from the present petitioner and by the impugned order the aforementioned maintenance allowance and expenses of proceeding was directed to be paid by the present petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court, while granting the aforesaidpendente lite maintenance allowance and expenses of the proceeding, had failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent, while filing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had suppressed the fact that in an earlier proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as M.R. Case No. 48/2021, whereby the petitioner was earlier directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) per month to the respondent and her minor daughters. He further submits that the trial court also failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner while submitting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 failed to submit any affidavit of her asset and liabilities in support of her claim.

5. He also submitted that the petitioner in his written objection to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as in the written statement filed in the main divorce suit has specifically stated about his liability including repayments of home loans and other liabilities which amounts to total of Rs. 38,252/- (Rupees thirty-eight thousand two hundred and fifty-two) per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the aforesaid liabilities to be incurred by the petitioner, he draws a net pay of Rs.50, 587/- (Rupees fifty thousand five hundred eighty-seven only).

6. He further submits that in the trial court also failed to take into consideration the fact that after separating from the present petitioner, the respondent is staying with another person. He submits that the impugned order is, therefore, liabl