IMPORTANT POINT
Award of pendente lite maintenance – Court cannot substitute its view on facts and conclusion of the learned Family Court as there is no violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

JUDGMENT

Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.—The matter is taken up in virtual court. Heard Ms. Jena, learned Sr. Counsel along with Ms. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. The matter was earlier heard and was adjourned by orders dated 12.01.2026 and 20.01.2026.

Today, the matter was heard again, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while awarding the amount of Rs.5,000/- by allowing the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking pendente lite maintenance, the learned Family Court has not taken the relevant materials on record into consideration.

3. The application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking pendente lite maintenance was filed by the wife in the marriage in CP No.246 of 2020. The said CP was filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar by the petitioner-husband in the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties and grant of decree of divorce.

4. On 20.01.2026, the following order was passed:-

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks accommodation to obtain up-to-date instructions, as on being asked by the Court, it is submitted that the petitioner has not yet complied the order of directing payment of pendente lite maintenance under Section 24.”

5. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned at the instance of the petitioner on 03.02.2026 and 06.03.2026, 31.03.2026 and 27.04.2026. On 06.03.2026 the following order was passed:-

“The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner refers to the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by this Court earlier and submits that affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed. 2. Having gone through the said affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 25.02.2026, the order dated 03.02.2026 particularly paragraphs-1 and 2 are reiterated. The petitioner shall file affidavit indicating the details as specified in order dated 03.02.2026. 3. List in the week commencing 30.03.2026.”

6. The learned Sr. Counsel has rested the case of the petitioner on the contention that the petitioner-husband has paid to the wife on several occasions being directed in several proceedings.

Learned Senior Counsel refers to the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 27.04.2026. The affidavit does not indicate how much amount as maintenance pendente lite has been paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court dated 03.01.2025 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act w.e.f. the date of filing of the application i.e. 14.03.2024.

It is not disputed by the learned instructing counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party that the some amount has been paid as directed by order dated 03.01.2025 in the pending C.P. From the date of application i.e. from 14.03.2024 is Rs.34,000/- as stated by the learned counsel Mr. Das for the opposite parties and Rs.40,000/- as stated by learned instructing counsel Ms. Panda for the petitioner.

7. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the amount of Rs.6,000/- directed by the Court in the domestic violence case CMC No.10 of 2921 filed U/s.12 of the D.V. Act has not been accounted for while directing for payment of pendente lite maintenance U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

8. Perusal of the order sheet of the learned Family Court in C.P. indicates that the learned Judge, Family Court has taken note of the payment of Rs.6,000/- as directed in CMC No.10 of 2021.

9. The legal issues pertaining to payment of pendente lite maintenance during pendency of a petition U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324:2020 INSC 631 The Paragraphs (SCC Print) which are apposite and applied to adjudicate the present application are reproduced herein:-

52. Some High Courts have taken the view that since e