NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 235 of 2024 Pankaj Vastrakar, S/o - Ramkumar Vastrakar, Aged about -38 years (wrongly mentioned as 35 years in the impugned order ), R/o- Devrikhurd Housing Board Colony, Police Station – Torwa, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus Deepika Vastrakar, D/o – Sundarlal Vastrakar, Aged about – 35 years, (wrongly mentioned as 32 years in the impugned order ), R/o- Songali, Kasimpara, Police Station – Torwa, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)

----Respondent/defendant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent : None present.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board

28-03-2024 Heard on admission.

1. Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/husband against the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur whereby application filed by respondent /wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth “Act, 1955”) seeking interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding has been partly allowed.

2. Learned counsel appearing petitioner/husband filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur as Civil Suit No. 282-A/2020. It is further submitted that there is no fixed source of income of petitioner/husband to earn his livelihood, despite that vide impugned order dated 22.09.2013, learned Family Court, Bilaspur has allowed the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 filed by respondent/wife by granting her an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance, Rs.300/- as travelling and diet money expenses and Rs.1,000 lumpsum as litigation expenses. It is further submitted that no proper reason has been assigned by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order, particularly, without seeking information from both the parties about their income and liabilities in compliance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, impugned order has been passed, hence, instant petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as material placed on record.

4. During course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner used to work as daily-wager in Hundai Showroom. As per application filed by respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, the petitioner/husband has also various movable and immovable property. Hence, considering inflation and price index of now a days, amount of interim maintenance, travelling & diet money expenses and litigation expenses granted by the learned Family Court, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be termed as higher side or perverse.

5. Although prior to passing such order, the Family Court should make all the endeavour to seek information regarding income and liabilities of both the parties in compliance of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), but not seeking aforesaid information, does not vitiate the order passed by the Family Court.

6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to allow the instant petitioner, hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Judge Amit/