Allowed¶22

Ranjana W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sanotkha Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026FAO(FC)/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; maintenance pendente lite awarded to husband payable by wife; order set aside; wife already receives Rs.2,500 p.m. from husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. order dated 12.01.2017 (ACJM Sarkaghat); husband's Section 13(1) HMA dissolution petition dismissed in default 18.08.2025; Family Court Hamirpur Petition No. 35 of 2024; FAO (FC) No. 63 of 2024; Himachal Pradesh High Court; appeal allowed; respondent ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed and disposed of; impugned order dated 29.10.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur awarding the respondent-husband Rs.3,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite set aside, with the observation that the husband is not entitled to maintenance from the appellant-wife. ¶22

Ranjana W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar… — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-husband (Pawan Kumar) was entitled to maintenance pendente lite of Rs.3,000/- per month from the appellant-wife (Ranjana) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, such that the Family Court order dated 29.10.2024 should be maintained.

¶21

Court's answer

The respondent-husband is not entitled to maintenance from the present appellant, i.e. his wife, much less the pendente lite maintenance as awarded by the Family Court, she having already been held entitled to receive Rs.2,500/- per month from him under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in separate proceedings.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 29.10.2024 of the Family Court, Hamirpur, awarding the husband Rs.3,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite, is set aside.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA — FAO (FC) No. 63 of 2024, decided 06.07.2026 (Vivek Singh Thakur & Ranjan Sharma, JJ.; oral judgment by Vivek Singh Thakur, J.). Appeal by the wife (Ranjana) against the order dated 29.10.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, in Petition No. 35 of 2024 (Pawan Kumar v. Ranjana), which, on the husband's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, awarded him Rs.3,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite payable by the wife. The respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 25.11.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant produced: (i) a printout showing the husband's main dissolution petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stood dismissed in default on 18.08.2025 for absence of both parties; and (ii) the order dated 12.01.2017 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sarkaghat (District Mandi, H.P.) in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings (Kumari Ranjana v. Pawan Kumar) awarding the wife Rs.2,500/- per month payable by the husband, which had attained finality, never having been assailed. HOLDING: the husband was not, and is not, entitled to maintenance from his wife, much less pendente lite maintenance; the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed and disposed of.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:26980 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

FAO (FC) No. 63 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026

Ranjana

....Appellant

Versus

Pawan Kumar

....Respondents

*Coram*
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.* *Hon’ble Mr Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.* *Whether approved for reporting?*¹
For the Appellant : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Respondent proceeded against_ex parte,_ vide order dated 25.11.2025.

¶10

Vivek Singh Thakur,Judge (oral)

¶11

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife,

¶12

Ranjana, against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Petition No. 35 of 2024, titled Pawan Kumar Vs. Ranjana , on filing of an application by respondent-husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance pendente lite , payable by the wife to the husband.

¶13

2. It is apt to record that the petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, had been preferred by the respondent-husband, wherein the respondent-

¶14

( 2026:HHC:26980 )

¶15

husband had also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant-wife, order passed wherein is under challenge before us.

¶16

3. Respondent was duly served but has not chosen to contest the present matter despite service. Accordingly, he was proceeded against ex parte on 25.11.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed on several occasions, however, no one came forward to represent the respondent, which indicates that the respondent-husband is not interested in contesting this appeal.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced a printout of the order dated 18.08.2025, whereby the main petition preferred by the respondent-husband before the Family Court under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage stands dismissed in default on account of the absence of the parties because despite calling the case repeatedly before lunch and thrice after lunch, no one came forward to represent either party.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed on record a copy of the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., titled Kumari Ranjana Vs. Pawan Kumar , whereby the wife (the present appellant) was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month, payable by the

¶19

( 2026:HHC:26980 )

¶20

respondent-husband. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said order has attained finality, as it was never assailed by the respondent.

¶21

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent-husband was not, and is not, entitled to pendente lite maintenance from his wife, who has already been held entitled to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in separate proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside with the observation that, in the given facts and circumstances and in view of the material placed before us, the respondent-husband is not entitled to maintenance from the present appellant, i.e. his wife, much less the pendente lite maintenance as awarded by the Family Court.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

¶24

disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(Vivek Singh Thakur) (Judge)

¶26

(Ranjan Sharma) (Judge)

¶27

06^th July, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)

Ranjana W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sanotkha Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar v. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sanotkha Ram

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

Ajay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dev Raj Singh Vs Ankita Bhati

District Kangra Private Bus Operators Welfare Society Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Reena Devi and Another

Prem Chand Katna Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

Sanjeev Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others