Dismissed¶34

Rita Jalan v. Amit Kumar Jalan

Chhattisgarh HC14 Oct 2025FA(MAT)/363/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance pendente lite; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; Section 25(1) HMA; permanent alimony claim Rs. 70,00,000 / Rs. 70,000 per month; suit expenses Rs. 10,00,000; litigation expenses Rs. 10,000 awarded; pre-existing maintenance Rs. 15,000 per month; appeal by wife dismissed at motion stage (on admission) without notice; trial to be concluded preferably within 04 months; Family Court Raipur; Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed at motion stage itself without issuing notice to the respondent, with a direction to the Family Court to decide the suit/trial expeditiously, preferably within 04 months from the date of the order. ¶34

Rita Jalan Vs Amit Kumar Jalan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Family Court, Raipur, declining the appellant/wife's claim for permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000 or Rs. 70,000 per month maintenance and Rs. 10,00,000 suit expenses, is illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.04.2025; consequently the appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself without issuing notice to the other party.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The appellant/wife is already getting Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance from the respondent/husband in a maintenance case pending before the same Family Court; the learned Family Court therefore only awarded Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses and rightly held at this stage that the wife is not entitled to any additional maintenance amount.

¶33

Key takeaways

The learned Family Court is directed to decide the suit/trial expeditiously, with the cooperation of both parties, preferably within 04 months from the date of the order.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench), FA(MAT) No. 363 of 2025, decided 15.10.2025 (per Rajani Dubey, J.; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.): Wife's appeal against the order dated 26.04.2025 of the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 454/2024 (divorce suit filed by the husband), whereby her application dated 30.09.2024 under Section 25(1) read with Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - seeking one-time permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000 or Rs. 70,000 per month maintenance and Rs. 10,00,000 towards expenses of suit - was partly allowed with only Rs. 10,000 awarded as litigation expenses, additional maintenance having been declined because the wife already receives Rs. 15,000 per month maintenance in another case pending before the same Family Court. Held: no interference warranted; appeal dismissed at motion stage itself without issuing notice to the respondent; Family Court directed to decide the suit/trial expeditiously, preferably within 04 months.

2025:CGHC:51290-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA(MAT) No. 363 of 2025

¶6

Rita Jalan W/o Shri Amit Kumar Jalan, D/o Sita Ram Kanodia, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khatu Shyam Mandir Road, Near Homeopathic College, Raju Badi, Ram Kund, Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Amit Kumar Jalan S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Jalan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 27 Abhoy Guha Road, Second Floor, Room No. 205, Near Post Office, Don Bosco School, Liluha, Belru, Howra, West Bengal, Pin 711204

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

(Cause title taken from CIS System)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad J.

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge

¶16

15.10.2025

¶17

Heard on admission.

¶18

This appeal is filed by the appellant/wife, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.4.2025(Annexure- A/1) passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 454/2024 whereby the interim maintenance application filed by the appellant/wife was rejected.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Family Court is completely illegal,

¶20

¶21

erroneous and contrary to the law, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Learned Family Court has wrongly decided the application and the appellant/wife was always ready to live with the respondent/husband together, but the respondent/husband has denied to live with her and as per Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant/wife is entitled for maintenance and litigation expenses, but the learned Family Court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So, the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure- A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur is liable to be set aside and wife/appellant is entitled for one time permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) or Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for expenses of suit in the interest of justice.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is reproduced herein for ready reference as under:-

¶24

Section 24- Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

¶25

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 petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.

¶26

1[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.]

¶27

¶28

It is evident from the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) that respondent/husband has filed divorce application against the appellant/wife and wife has filed application dated 30.09.2024 under Section 25 (1) read with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for one time permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) or Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for expenses of suit.

¶29

Learned Family Court after hearing argument of both the parties partly allowed the application of the appellant/wife by awarding Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses and passed impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure- A/1).

¶30

Operative para of impugned order dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) is reproduced herein for ready reference as under:-

¶31

" अभ ि �लखस े े सपष ् ्ट होरहाह ै क ि �प�रणम ्र ें वाद-पदक ि �र ् म ि त�ही क ि �य े गय े ह ै ।प ्र �रण� े क ि �रा�रणम ें समयलग� े �ीस ं �ाव�ास इ ं �ार�ही ं क ि �याजास�ता।क ि ववाह-क ि वच ् छ े दस ं बधीआव ं े द� , आव े द�अक ि मत�मारजला�� ु े दाराप ्व शक े ि �यागयाह ै ।ऐसीदशा म ें इसमामल े �ीतथ ् यो ं एव ं पर ि रस ्थि स2त ् ि तयो ं �ोदखत े े हएअ�ाव ु क े ि द�ा �ोवाद-वयय� ् 10,000/- रू. ए�म ु शतराभ ् ि शआव े द�स े क ि दलाया जा�ाउत ि 8तप ्र तीतहोरहाह ै ।जहा ं त�इसवाद� े लब��ालम ं अ�ाव े क ि द�ा�ो�रण-पोषण�ीराभ ि शक ि दलाय े जा� े �ास ं बधह ं , इस स ं बधम ं ें आव े द�� े अप� े ल ि लल ि खतजवाबम ें यहउलखक ्ले ि �याह ै क ि � अ�ाव े क ि द�ा , आव े द�स े बतौर�रण-पोषण�ीराभ ि श 15,000/- रु. पत ्र ि तमाहप ्र ाप ्त �ररहीह ै ।उक ्त तथयो ् ं �ीप ु क ि ष ्ट अ�ावक े ि द�ा�ीओर - स े प ्र स ् ततप ु ्र �रण�० एमसीसी/113/2021 पक�ारर ्ष ि रताजला� क ि वरद ू ्ध अक ि मत�मारजला�जोक ु ि �इसीन ् यायालयम ें ल ं क ि बतह , से - �ीप ु क ि ष ्ट होरहीह ै ।ऐसीदशाम ें इसप ्र �रणम ें अ�ाव े क ि द�ा�ो�रण पोषण�ीराभ ि शक ि दलाय े जा� े �ीआवशय�ताप ् ्र तीत�ही ं होरहाह ै । अतःअ�ाव े क ि द�ा�ाउक ्त स ं बधम ं ें क ि �यागयाक ि �व े द�असवी�ार ् क ि �याजाताह ै त2ाआव े द��ोक ि �द F भ ि शत�ीक ि �याजाताह ै क ि � अ�ाव े क ि द�ा�ोबतौरवाद-वयय ् 10,000/- रू. आगामीत ि त2ीपर " अदा�र। ें

¶32

¶33

It is quite evident from the impugned order that the appellant/wife is getting Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the respondent/ husband in maintenance case pending before the same Family Court. Thus, the learned Family Court has only awarded Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and has rightly held at this stage that wife is not entitled for any additional maintenance amount and thereby awarded Rs. 10,000/- for expenses of litigation, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶34

In consequence, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself without issuing notice to the other party, however it is directed that the learned Family Court shall decide the suit/trial expeditiously as early as possible with cooperation of both the parties preferably within ‘ 04 months ’ from the date of this order.

¶35

The copy of this order be sent immediately to the learned Family Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶36

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶37

AMIT PATEL

Rita Jalan v. Amit Kumar Jalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Jalan v. Amit Kumar Jalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusumlata Sahu Vs Purushottam Kumar Sahu

Smt. Hiro Bai Manikpuri Vs Smt. Arunabai Manikpuri

Smt. Monika Tamrakar Vs Prashant Kumar Tamrakar

Ram Singh Tulavi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Siddharth Shukla Vs Smt. Tishu Shukla

Rahul Gupta Vs Radhika Gupta