THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2618 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.179 of 2020 in O.S. No.19 of 2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge-

cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Shankar Polasa, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and have carefully perused the material available on record.

3. In spite of due notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and submissions of the petitioner. It is contended that respondent No.1, being the wife of the petitioner, is well qualified, and has sufficient means to maintain herself. It is further urged that the trial Court failed to consider these aspects and mechanically awarded exorbitant interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), without taking into account the petitioner’s financial constraints and the other responsibilities he is required to meet. Hence, learned counsel prays for interference with the impugned order.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. The impugned order arises from an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers the Court to grant interim maintenance and litigation expenses to a spouse who has no independent income sufficient for his or her support during the pendency of the proceedings. The object of Section 24 is to ensure that the indigent spouse is not handicapped in effectively participating in the matrimonial litigation and is able to sustain herself or himself during the proceedings (see. Smt.

Manish Jain v. Akhil Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801).

7. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties. The petitioner has fairly admitted his liability to maintain his minor daughter (petitioner No.2) and confined his challenge to the interim maintenance awarded to respondent No.1/wife. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the wife is well qualified and possesses sufficient means to maintain herself. However, as fairly admitted by the petitioner, no documentary or oral evidence was placed before the trial Court to substantiate these assertions.

8. It is a settled proposition that mere pleading that the wife is capable of earning or that she is qualified to work does not by itself disentitle her to maintenance, unless it is shown that she is actually earning a sufficient income to support herself. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, has held that while determining maintenance, the Court must consider the earning capacity, educational qualifications, and actual income of both parties, keeping in mind the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and the principle of fairness. Similarly, in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, it was observed that the term “means” under maintenance laws does not imply mere physical capability to earn, but actual earning capacity or income.

9. In view of the admitted facts and the absence of supporting material to demonstrate that the respondent-wife has independent income, the Court below rightly exercised its discretion under Section 24 of the Act. The interim maintenance awarded is only a temporary arrangement pending adjudication of the main proceedings, and therefore, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he intends to place additional material before the trial Court to substantiate his plea regarding the financial capacity of the wife, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce such evidence during the course of enquiry while determining the final maintena