Dismissed¶33

Shyamlal v. Nisha

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2025FAO/280/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance pendente lite; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; interim maintenance during pendency of Section 11 divorce petition; plea that marriage is void rejected absent recorded finding of voidness; legally wedded wife entitled to maintenance; quantum Rs.10,000/- per month upheld as not excessive; husband's income assessed Rs.55,000-60,000/- per month via affidavit of income, assets and liabilities; litigation expenses Rs.5,500/-; Family Court Jhajjar (Camp Court Bahadurgarh); FAO before High Court of Punjab and Haryana; delay of 103 days condoned.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-husband; the Family Court order awarding the respondent-wife Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses remains undisturbed. ¶33

Shyamlal Vs Nisha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-husband; the Family Court order awarding the respondent-wife Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses remains undisturbed.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 despite the appellant-husband's contention that the marriage is null and void owing to her concealment of a previous marriage. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Since the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband is still pending adjudication and no finding that the marriage is void has been recorded by the competent court, the marriage between the parties cannot be said to be void.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

As on the date of the order, the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and he is therefore liable to maintain her.

¶30

Key takeaways

In fixing maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month, the Family Court took into consideration the appellant's affidavit of income, assets and liabilities and assessed his income between Rs.55,000/- and Rs.60,000/- per month.ratio¶30
Grant of maintenance pendente lite at Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be on the higher side.ratio¶30
There is no illegality in the impugned Family Court order warranting interference by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sudhir Singh, J.) dismisses FAO-280-2025 (O&M) challenging the Family Court, Jhajjar order dated 06.09.2024, which allowed the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the husband's pending Section 11 divorce petition and awarded her Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite plus Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses. Held: because the divorce petition is still pending and no court has yet recorded a finding that the marriage is void (as contended by the husband on the plea of concealment of an earlier marriage), the respondent is, as on date, the legally wedded wife and the appellant is liable to maintain her; the quantum of Rs.10,000/- per month is not excessive, the Family Court having assessed the husband's income at Rs.55,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month from his affidavit of income, assets and liabilities. Delay of 103 days in filing the appeal was condoned (CM-951-CII-2025).

¶1

FAO-280-2025 (O&M)

¶2

116

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-280-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: January 21, 2025

Shyamlal

….Appellant

versus

Nisha

….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶11

Present: - Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM-951-CII-2025

¶15

For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of 103 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶16

Main case (O&M)

¶17

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh (for short the ‘Family Court’), whereby, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent-wife, has been allowed, and she has been awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.

¶18

In a petition under Section 11 of the Act, filed by the appellanthusband, the respondent-wife had filed the aforesaid application, inter alia , averring therein that she was not able to maintain herself claiming the appellant/husband to be a man of means, who was fetching an income of

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.27 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶21

FAO-280-2025 (O&M)

¶22

Rs.60,000/- per month. She further averred that apart from said income, the appellant/husband also owned houses at Village Badsa along with two vacant plots, from where, he was getting monthly rental income to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Apart that, the appellant/husband was also having additional income of Rs.15,000/- per month from his 3 acre agricultural land/plots in his native village. Thus, the respondent-wife had claimed Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.99,000/- for one time litigation expenses.

¶23

The said application was contested by the appellant-husband denying that the respondent/wife had no source of income and she was unable to maintain herself. He had alleged that the marriage between the parties was null and void as the respondent/wife had concealed the factum of her earlier marriage, which was continuing at the time of her marriage with the appellant/husband. He further alleged that the respondent/wife had demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the appellant/husband in order to withdraw a complaint given by her against him to the Women Cell at Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The appellant/husband had also denied the agricultural and/or rental income as averred by the respondent/wife in her application.

¶24

The learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife, as noticed above.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has vehemently argued that once it is the stand of the appellant in his divorce petition that marriage was null and void and the respondent/wife had concealed the factum of her previous marriage, she is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite and the said aspect has totally been ignored by the learned Family Court.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.27 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶29

FAO-280-2025 (O&M)

¶30

The sole contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent/wife is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite as marriage between the parties was void. In this regard, suffice to say that divorce petition filed by the appellant/husband is still pending adjudication before the competent Court and unless a finding regarding the marriage being void is recorded by the Court concerned, it cannot be said that the marriage between the parties was void. The fact remains that as on date, the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the appellant, and therefore, the appellant is liable to maintain her. While awarding maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, learned Family Court has taken into consideration the affidavit of income, assets and liabilities filed by the appellant and thus, assessed his income between Rs.55,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month. Still further, grant of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.10,000/per month cannot be said to be on higher side.

¶31