Order on Board

1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Civil Suit No. 119-A/2024, whereby the learned Family Court granted the maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the respondent and Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum under head of cost of litigation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnised on 03.05.2023. After about 17-18 days of the marriage, as per their rituals, the respondent/wife came back to her parents’ house and again went to her matrimonial house in the month of June, 2023. Since the petitioner husband was working in Bangalore, he returned to his workplace, leaving the respondent’s wife at Bilaspur. However, the petitioner husband has not taken her with him, and the respondent wife has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, on 23.08.2024. On 04.12.2024, after the petitioner-husband in the proceedings, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and the cost of litigation. After hearing the parties, the learned family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has granted Rs. 20,000/- as the maintenance pendente lite till the conclusion of the proceeding and Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum cost of litigation vide its order dated 17.04.2025 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the objection raised by the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife had filed her affidavit as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Neha and Another, (2021 (2) SCC 324), in which she deliberately concealed the material facts and simply denied the every paragraphs of the affidavit in format showing herself as a pauper. The respondent/wife does not belong to the below poverty line category. She filed her bank account statement for the period between 13.01.2022 to 26.07.2022, 15.10.2023 to 24.03.2024 and 16.10.2024 to 12.01.2025, which revealed that an amount of Rs. 1,05,954/- has been deposited in her account from 15.10.2023 to 31.12.2023 and Rs. 3,14,580/- between the period from 01.01.2024 to March 2024 and further Rs. 1,06,121/- between 16.10.2024 to 08.01.2025. The said deposition of the amount in the bank account of the respondent/wife would reveal that she deliberately did not file the bank transaction details for the period between 01.01.2022 to 12.01.2022, 27.07.2022 to 14.10.2023 and 25.03.2024 to 15.10.2024. The said affidavit is in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra). The bank transaction details of the respondent/wife clearly demonstrated that she is earning a sufficient amount for her livelihood and is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite or cost of litigation. The respondent/wife has not explained such a money transaction in her bank account, and the unexplained deposit in the bank account will be treated as her income. The learned family Court has not considered the said aspect of deposition of a huge amount in her bank account, which is not explained by her, and treating the said amount as her income, she ought not to grant maintenance pendente lite. The financial status of the respondent/wife disentitle for the grant of maintenance pendente lite, yet the learned family Court granted the same. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reply upon the case of Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 2011 SCC Online Del 3841, and Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan v. The Income Tax Officer, decided on 12.09.2024