IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 4860 of 2025 ANKIT SHRIVATRI Versus RAVINA SHRIVATRI Appearance:

Miss Kaushiki Mishra - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Amit Shukla - Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

ORDER The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/husband challenging the Order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Family Court thereby deciding application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and wherein Pendelite Maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month apart from Rs.30,000/- as one time litigation expenses has been awarded.

2. The aforesaid Order is challenged by the Petitioner/husband on the ground that the Petitioner/husband has filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights and during course of adjudication of the said application, the Respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking pendente lite maintenance and expenses of proceedings.

3. It is argued that the Family Court itself has arrived at a finding that the Respondent/wife is employed in an Information Technology Company (I.T. Company) and she is in receipt of monthly salary to the tune of Rs.85,338/- and therefore, she is having sufficient sources to maintain herself and jurisdiction under Section 24 could have been invoked only if the wife had no independent source of income to support herself. The Family Court did not arrive at any such conclusion but simply out of grace and sympathy has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent without arriving at satisfaction in terms of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act or in terms of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/wife has vehemently argued that the Petitioner/husband is working in Germany and is earning 80,000 Euros per annum which translates to about Rs.3.90 lakhs per month and he is having sufficient sources of income to maintain himself. It is argued that not only the husband is earning very well but his parents are also in government service or have retired from government service having good financial rewards and he is a very well to do person. It is further argued that the respondent/wife has taken various loans for which she has to pay instalments of repayment and she is paying EMI of Rs.21,968/- per month to repay the loans and hence, she is not having sufficient sources of income to maintain herself.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the husband though resident of Jabalpur M.P., is at present working in Germany and is reported to be earning 80,000 Euros per annum which is a stated to translate to Rs.3.90 lakhs per month. The learned counsel for Petitioner has vehemently argued that once the husband is earning in Euros then he is also spending in Euros and it cannot be inferred that he is earning Rs.3.90 lakhs in India in Indian Currency and he would be having sufficient savings which a person earning that much amount per month in India would be able to save. It is argued that the expenses are being borne by the husband in Euros in Germany and his status cannot be equated to a person earning 3.90 lakhs and living in India.

7. This Court finds the aforesaid argument to be substantiated because a person earning in foreign currency and living in foreign country would be spending in foreign currency and their status cannot be equated to a person earning equivalent amount in Indian Currency and residing in India and spending in Indian rupees.

8. Though it cannot be disputed that the husband may be a well to do person and would still be saving and be able to save a substantial amount in Indian Rupees from a salary which he is getting in Euros, but for the purpose of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, what is required to to considered is that the w