Chattisgarh High Court
Akash Ahirwar vs Smt. Ragini Dadoriya Ahirwar on 17 June, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:24497
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 653 of 2026
1 - Akash Ahirwar S/o Shri M.L. Ahirwar Aged About 31 Years R/o Green
City Colony, House No. 18, Raigarh, Tah And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Ragini Dadoriya Ahirwar W/o Shri Akash Ahirwar, D/o Shri O.P.
Dadoriya Aged About 30 Years R/o Royal Green City, Chhatamuda,
Bypass Road Raigarh Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None present.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Order on Board
17/06/2026
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 194/2025,
whereby the application preferred by the respondent-wife under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been partly allowed and the
2
petitioner-husband has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite
of ₹5,000/- per month along with one-time litigation expenses of
₹7,000/- and travelling expenses of ₹100/- on each date of hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage
between the parties was solemnized on 20.02.2023 and out of the
wedlock a child was born on 22.02.2024. Subsequently, matrimonial
discord arose between the parties, leading the petitioner/husband to
institute proceedings under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the said
proceedings, the respondent-wife moved an application under Section
24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation
expenses, which has culminated in the impugned order.
3. It is contended that the respondent-wife is working as a Staff
Nurse at Primary Health Centre, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh and is
earning ₹18,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner is
engaged in the work of repairing air-conditioners, refrigerators and other
electronic appliances through a small establishment (shop) and is
earning a meagre income. According to the petitioner, he is also
burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and
other family liabilities. It is thus argued that the learned Family Court
has failed to appreciate the financial status of the parties in its proper
perspective and has erroneously awarded maintenance pendente lite in
favour of a gainfully employed spouse. Thus, the impugned order is
stated to be unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
3
4. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and upon perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that the relationship of husband and
wife between the parties is undisputed. It is also not in dispute that the
minor child born out of the wedlock is presently residing with the
respondent-wife. The affidavit filed by the respondent-wife discloses her
monthly income to be approximately ₹18,500/-, whereas the petitioner
has disclosed his monthly income to be around ₹35,000/-.
5. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided for grant of
maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the proceeding and
according to the said provision, in any proceeding under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the
husband, as the case may be, has not independent income sufficient for
her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it
may, on the application of the wife or the husband ordered the
respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses the proceeding and
monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the
petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem
to the Court to be reasonable.
6. The objective of the maintenance pendente lite and expenses
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is primarily to provide
financial assistance to the claimant’s spouse in order for them to carry
on with the proceedings and maintain themselves. The provision of
Section 24 is not intended to equalize the income of the spouses but
rather to prevent one from suffering due to a lack of financial support
4
during divorce or other proceedings. Where one spouse has no source
of income or support to maintain themselves, the court has to make an
order on the basis of the income of the other spouse. The true objective
of Section 24 is to give financial assistance to the spouse who requires
it and not to equalize the incomes of the spouses.
7. The Family Court has the discretion in passing an order regarding
the maintenance pendente lite amount under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, that a spouse may be required to pay to the other
based on reasonable grounds. In order to exercise this discretion, the
court considers the income of the spouse who has made the application
for maintenance pendente lite and the income of the other spouse who
is required to pay such interim maintenance and expenses. In the case
of “Rajnesh v. Neha and Another“, 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Apex
Court has observed the criteria for determining the quantum of
maintenance. It has been observed that:-
77. The objective of granting
interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that
the dependent spouse is
not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on
account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is
no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum
of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the
court inter alia are the status of the parties;
reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children; whether the applicant is educated
and professionally qualified; whether the
applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient to
enable her to maintain the same standard of
5
living as she was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home; whether the applicant was
employed prior to her marriage; whether she
was working during the subsistence of the
marriage; whether the wife was required to
sacrifice her employment opportunities for
nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking
after adult members of the family; reasonable
costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, this
Court
held that the financial position of the parents of
the applicant wife, would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance. An
order of interim maintenance is conditional on
the
circumstance that the wife or husband who
makes a claim has no independent income,
sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer
to a claim of maintenance that the wife is
educated and could support herself. The court
must take into consideration the status of the
parties and the
capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his
support. Maintenance is dependent upon
factual situations; the court should mould the
claim for maintenance based on various
factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of
the husband, his actual income, reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance, and
dependent family members whom he is
obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if
any, would be required to be taken into
quantum living of the husband, as well as the
spiralling inflation rates and high costs of of
maintenance to be paid. The court must have
due regard to the standard of ipso facto does
not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain
his wife if he is living. The plea of the husband
that he does not possess any source of
income able-bodied and has educational
6
qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn
between all relevant factors. The test for
determination of maintenance in matrimonial
disputes depends on the financial status of the
respondent, and the standard of living that the
amount awarded must be reasonable and
realistic, and avoid either of the two applicant
was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The
maintenance which becomes oppressive and
unbearable for the respondent, nor should it
be extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the
wife should neither be so extravagant so
meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The
sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged
so that the wife is able to maintain herself with
reasonable comfort.”
8. In the case of “Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde” 2007 SCC
Online Del 622, the Delhi High Court has observed in its order that:-
“8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not
truthfully reveal their income. For self
employed persons or
persons employed in the unorganized sector,
truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance
is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception
in this country. Therefore, in determining
interim maintenance, there cannot be
mathematical exactitude. The court has to
take a general view.
From the various judicial precedents, the
under noted 11 factors can be culled out,
which are to be taken into consideration while
deciding an application under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are.
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of
the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non applicant
7as to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live
in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical attendance and treatment
etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while
estimating the income of the non applicant
when all the sources or correct sources are
not disclosed.
10. The non applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s. 125 Cr.PC is
adjustable against the amount awarded
u/s.24 of the Act.”
9. In the case of “Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava” 2011 SCC
Online Del 1651, the Delhi High Court further held that:-
“12. It is settled position of law that a wife is
entitled to live in a similar status as was
enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is
the H duty of the courts to ensure that it
should not be a case that one spouse lives in
a life of comfort and luxury while the other
spouse lives a life of deprivation, poverty.
During the pendency of divorce proceedings
the parties should be able to maintain
themselves and should be sufficiently I
entitled to be represented in judicial
proceedings. If in case the party is unable to
do so on account of insufficient income, the
other spouse shall be liable to pay the same.
(See Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District
Judge, Dehradun & Others, reported in
(1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7).
13. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, reported in
140 (2007) DLT 16 has culled out 11 factors,
which can be taken into consideration for
8deciding the application under Section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act.
14. Further it has been noticed by the Courts
that
the tendency of the spouses in proceedings
for maintenance is to not truthfully disclose
their true
income. However, in such cases some guess
work on the part of Court is permissible.
15. The Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jasbir Kaur (Smt.) (supra), has also
recognized the fact that spouses in the
proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully
disclose in their true income and therefore
some guess work on the part of the Court is
permissible. Further the Supreme Court has
also observed that “considering the diverse
claims made by the parties one inflating the
income and the other suppressing an element
of conjecture and guess work does enter for
arriving at the income of the husband. It
cannot be done by any mathematical
precision”.
16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive
list of factors, which are to be considered in
guessing the income of the spouses, but the
order based on guess work cannot be
arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. While
guessing the income of the spouse, when the
sources of income are either not disclosed or
not correctly disclosed, the Court can take
into consideration amongst others the
following factors:
(i) Life style of the spouse;
(ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage
and the manner in which marriage was
performed;
(iii) Destination of honeymoon;
(iv) Ownership of motor vehicles;
9
(v) Household facilities;
(vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help;
(vii) Credit cards;
(viii) Bank account details;Jayant Bhargava
v. Priya Bhargava (G.S. Sistani, J.)
(ix) Club Membership;
(x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid;
(xi) Property or properties purchased;
(xii) Rental income;
(xiii) Amount of rent paid;
(xiv) Amount spent on travel/ holiday;
(xv) Locality of residence;
(xvi) Number of mobile phones;
(xvii) Qualification of spouse;
(xviii) School(s) where the child or children
are studying when parties were residing
together;
(xix) Amount spent on fees and other
expenses incurred;
(xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular
activities of children when parties were
residing together;
(xxi) Capacity to repay loan
17. These are some of the factors, which may
be considered by any court in guesstimating
or having a rough idea or to guess the income
of a spouse. It has repeatedly been held by
the Courts that one cannot ignore the fact that
an Indian woman has been given an equal
status under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and she has a right to
live in dignity and according to the status of
her husband. In this case, the stand taken by
the respondent with respect to his earning is
unbelievable.”
10. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
10
respondent-wife is disentitled to maintenance solely on the ground that
she is gainfully employed does not merit acceptance. The learned
Family Court, while awarding maintenance pendente lite to the tune of
₹5,000/- per month, has duly considered the pleadings of the parties,
the documents placed on record, and the principles enunciated by the
Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another (supra). The learned Court
has further taken into account the financial capacity of the husband, the
respective incomes of the parties, the prevailing cost of living, and the
standard of life enjoyed by them. Upon a holistic consideration of the
aforesaid factors, the award of maintenance pendente lite at ₹5,000/-
per month was found to be just, fair and reasonable.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds that although the petitioner may be required to maintain
his aged parents, the respondent-wife is equally burdened with the
responsibility of maintaining and upbringing the minor child who is
residing with her. The income disclosed by the petitioner is substantially
higher than that of the respondent-wife. In such circumstances, the
direction issued by the learned Family Court requiring the petitioner to
pay maintenance pendente lite of ₹ 5,000/- per month, together with
one-time litigation expenses of ₹7,000/- and travelling expenses of
₹100/- per date of hearing, cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or
disproportionate.
12. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned Family Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in
11
accordance with settled principles of law. The scope of interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such matters is limited.
Unless the order impugned suffers from patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error, this Court would be slow in substituting its own view
for that of the Family Court. Upon a careful scrutiny of the impugned
order, no such infirmity is discernible warranting interference by this
Court. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2026.06.27
11:49:13 +0530
