Maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a need-based provision; if a spouse is already receiving sufficient maintenance from other judicial orders, they are not considered to be without sufficient means, and mere income disparity does not justify further interim maintenance.

Order on Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Case No.779/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Brief facts of this case is that the respondent - Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prajapati has preferred an application under Section 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court for grant of decree of divorce of the marriage between the parties which was performed on dated 21/05/1998. The appellant - Smt Sunita Prajapati has filed reply of the application u/s 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Further, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The respondent herein has filed reply of the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court after considering the application and its reply, dismissed the application filed application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by the appellant on 11/07/2025. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Family Court has rejected the application on the ground that the appellant is receiving Rs.15,000/- per month by order dated 27/02/2024 in which Rs.5,000/- per month has been adjusted which was granted as an interim amount in case of domestic violence. The Family Court should have considered the facts that the respondent has submitted an affidavit with respect to the details of income in which the income shown as Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He would further submit that the Family Court should have considered the fact that Section 24 of HMA, 1955 governs the expenses occurring during the pendency of proceedings under HMA & these expenses include court fees, travelling expenses & other related expenditure. It is need to mention here that at present she is residing in her parental home at village Gharawal, P.O. Bhupgarh, District Gorakhpur (U.P.) and she has to come to attend the proceeding from Uttar Pradesh. The Family Court should have considered the fact that maintenance awarded u/s 24 of HMA is temporary in nature and it is only to provide financial support only during the pendency of legal proceedings, and the Family Court in a very casual manner rejected the application on the ground that the appellant is already receiving Rs.15,000/-per month granted in other proceedings, but while considering this aspect, the Family Court has not considered the fact that those amount cannot be taken in the present case as the present proceeding which is pending before the learned Family Court requires independent amount of maintenance which is being used in the pending proceedings. It is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 11/07/2025 passed in Case No.779/2023 by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.).

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record.

5. From the application itself, it is evident that the appellant claimed to b