Vandana Prajapati vs Maheshchandra Prajapati

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25/8/2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of pendente lite has been rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has rejected the said application mainly on two grounds that the allegation against the petitioner by the respondent in the divorce petition is that she is leading an adulterous life and the other is that she filed application for grant of maintenance after about two years of filing of the divorce petition. It is argued that the order is apparently contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is reproduced as under:-

24.Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.-- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no 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, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of 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:

[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.]

Upon perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the Court at the time of considering the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings that whether the wife or the husband as the case may be, has any independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. The application has been rejected on the considerations which are not within the consideration prescribed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, as per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, she has specifically stated that she has no source of income.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed. The Court is directed to pass fresh order on the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent and without being influenced by the order dated 25/8/2023.

With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and disposed off.