The court reaffirmed the necessity of financial support for a dependent spouse during proceedings, emphasizing the discretion courts have in evaluating alimony based on financial circumstances.

In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CO/173/2024 DILIP SHARMA VS PUJA AGARWALA @ PUJA SHARMA Mr. Arnab Saha, …for the petitioner Mr. Milindo Paul, Mr. Nabankur Paul, Mr. Bedasruti Bose, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh, Mr. Subham Das, ….for the respondent This revisional application is directed against an order dated 31 August, 2024 passed in an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Briefly, in an application under section 24 for pendent lite maintenance the Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Siliguri had directed that the petitioner husband to pay the respondent wife a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as alimony alongwith Rs. 2,500/- as litigation costs.

The applicant challenges the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without considering any of the facts and circumstances of this case. It is alleged by the petitioner husband that fraud and injustice has been perpetrated against him in passing of the impugned order. The respondent wife was a citizen of Nepal. Moreover, 27 days after solemnization of the marriage, the respondent wife carried away her gold ornaments and her personal belongings to her matrimonial house. The applicant also alleges that the marriage was a nullity on the ground that the respondent wife was previously married in Nepal. It is also alleged that the child is not that of the petitioner. Thus, a paternity issue is now raised in respect of the minor child by the applicant.

The matter had been adjourned on repeated occasions. Pursuant to orders of Court, a Mediator had also been appointed who had filed a Report, inter-alia highlighting that due to the acrimonious differences between the parties, no mediation was possible.

It is submitted by both the parties that they have paid their share of Rs.10,000/- each.

All issues are still pending for consideration in the matrimonial suit.

In the meantime, in an application under section 24 of the Act, the Learned Judge after considering the facts and circumstances, the declared assets and liabilities, the monthly income of the opposite party i.e. husband and based on the clarification received from both the parties has arrived at the figure of Rs.15,000/- per month alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,500/-. In passing the impugned order, the Learned Court has also taken into consideration the annual turnover and gross receivables of the petitioner which aggregate to Rs. 1,84,54,320/-. The net income of the applicant has been assessed at Rs.4,98,930/- and the regular monthly withdrawals at Rs. 74,654/-. The applicant was also found to have cash in hand aggregating to Rs. 59,832.05/-. The tax returns and bank statements of the applicant husband has also been taken into consideration in passing the impugned order.

For convenience, the relevant provision is set out herein below:

“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 of 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.

Provided, that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.”

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is a beneficial provision designed to prevent financial hardship to a spouse who lacks sufficient independent income during the pendency of matrimonial litigation. The provision ensures that a financially weaker spouse, often the wife, is no