Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 aims to ensure effective legal participation and mitigate financial hardship; therefore, a Family Court's discretion in awarding nominal, modest incidental or litigation expenses cannot be challenged purely on the basis that the recipient is gainfully employed.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

02.06.2026

1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, through Video Conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.52-A/2025, whereby the learned Family Court erroneously interpreted the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and granted Rs.3,000/- as onetime litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- per month for the purpose of transportation and food expenses.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was solemnized on 09.02.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Ambikapur. It is pleaded by the appellant that the appellant has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act of 1955), in which, after receiving the notice, the respondent-wife appeared and filed her written statement and denied the claim made in the plaint. During the pendency of the Civil Suit bearing No. 52-A/2025, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses on the ground that the appellant is having good source of income. The appellant/husband filed written statement to the said application filed by the respondent/wife and strongly denied the claim therein. Furthermore, the appellant also stated that the respondent/wife is a Government Teacher and she was earning around Rs.70,000/- per month, therefore, the provision of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 will not be applicable in the case of respondent/wife. Moreover, during the hearing of Section 24 application, the appellant produced cogent evidence (Salary Slips) obtain through the Right to Information Act,2005 to prove that the respondent/wife is gainfully employed and earning a monthly salary of ₹71,482/-. As a result thereof, despite the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2026, having observed that the respondent/wife is capable to maintain herself, it erroneously interpreted the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 and partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and granted Rs.3,000/- one time litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- per month for transportation and food expenses.

4. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error of law as well as on facts as the income of the respondent/wife is much higher than that of the appellant/husband. Further, there is no one dependent upon the respondent/wife. The purpose of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide support an assistance to the wife financially but in the present case, the respondent/wife does not need any financial assistance as she is herself capable of managing her financial needs being a government servant earning a good salary. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly interpreted the income of the respondent-wife and thereby failing the fundamental test of “inability to maintain oneself” as provided under the statute, therefore, the maintenance as has been granted to the respondent-wife vide order dated 10.03.2026, is on higher side and liable to b