The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court observed that in matrimonial proceedings, wives and children often face greater financial crises compared to husbands, as they have limited support from family or income. Their situation is frequently exploited by the husband, making it difficult for them to navigate such proceedings.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the judgment on November 11, 2024, while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging an order passed by the additional principal judge, family court, Lucknow, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order directed him to pay a one-time amount of Rs. 50,000 as “legal activities (litigation expenses)” to his wife.
The husband was also directed to pay a one-time sum of ₹10,000 as litigation costs and ₹500 per hearing within 30 days from the date of the order.
The family court issued this order in September 2024 on the application filed by the wife seeking pendent lite maintenance in relation to the divorce suit filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Challenging the family court order, the husband’s counsel argued that the family court failed to consider that the wife was living separately without valid justification. It was also contended that the family court overlooked the fact that the husband’s department had already ordered him to pay ₹67,000 in instalments for his family’s maintenance, which should have been taken into account while allowing the wife’s application.
{{/usCountry}}Challenging the family court order, the husband’s counsel argued that the family court failed to consider that the wife was living separately without valid justification. It was also contended that the family court overlooked the fact that the husband’s department had already ordered him to pay ₹67,000 in instalments for his family’s maintenance, which should have been taken into account while allowing the wife’s application.
{{/usCountry}}In response, the high court noted that the family court had merely granted the expenses the wife would incur in the divorce suit. The court further clarified that any amount being paid for the maintenance of children under departmental orders does not affect the expenses the wife is required to incur in the suit.
The high court also observed that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife arises upon marriage, while the obligation towards children arises at their birth. These obligations are imposed by law.
Given that no material was presented to show that the wife had an independent source of income and considering that the husband is a colonel in the Indian Army with a handsome salary, the court upheld the family court’s order and dismissed the husband’s appeal.