High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslanc€s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the.High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to ttle order passed in l.A.No.179 of 2024 in O.P.No.19 of 2022 in The Court Of The Senior Civil Judge Cum Asst Sessions Judge At Huzurabad pendirg disposal of the Revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SHANKAR POLASA Counsel for the Respondent : SRI P. RAJAGOPAL REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER a .t THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE IY. TUIIT I'AMJI CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.2618 of to25 9Rp.ER: This Civil Revision Petition has been flled assailing tJre order dated 27.O3.2O25 passed in I-A. No.179 of 2O2O in O.S. No.19 of 2022 on the hle of the learned Senicr Civil Judge- cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad. I have heard Mr. Shankar Polasa, le:u 2. appearing for the revision petitioner, and .l ned counsel rye carefully perused the material av-ailabie on record. '" '' 3: - -In spite of due notice, none appeared for th' respondent' +. tearned counsel for the revisron petitioner submits that the Court below failed to properll appreciate alld submissions of the petitioner. [t is cr) respondent No.l, being the rvife of the petit qualffied, and has sufficient rneans to maintair . further urged that the trial Court failed to : he pleadings rtended that cner, is well herself. It is rnsider these aspects and mechanically arvar<ied exortr: :ant interim maintenance under Section 21 of the Hindu vlarriage Act, : - 1955 ("the Act"), withou'. taking i;ito account re petitioner's 2 frnancial constraints and the other responsibilities he is required to meet. Hence, learned counsel prays for interference with the impugrred order.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. The impugned order arises from an apPlication filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers the Court to grant interim maintenanre anrd litigation expenses to a spouse who has no independent income sufficient for his or her support during tJre pendency of the proceedings. The object of Section 24 is to ensure that the indigent spouse is not handicapped in effectively participating in the matrimonial litigation and is able to sustain herself or himself during the proceedings (see. Smt. ManishJain u. Akhil Join, (2017) 15 SCC 801).

7. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties. The petitioner has fairly admitted his liabilitl' to maintain his minor daughter (petitioner No.2 ) and confined his challenge to the interim ,/ maintenance as'arded to respondent No.1/wife. The principal' contention of the petitioner is that the wife is well qualifred 6 3 ald possesses sufficient means to maintain her ;elf- However, as fairly admitted by the petitioner, no docunr' ntary or oral evidence was placed before the trial Court tc substantiate t-hese assertions.

8. It 'is a settled proposition that mere plea ling that the wife is capable of earning or that she is qualihe t to work does not by itself disentitle her to maintenance, unl: ;s it is shown that she is actually earning a sufhcient incor re to support herself. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh u. Neha (2o2tl2 SCC 324, has held that while determining maintenr,r rce, the Court must consider tJle earning capacitl', educational qualiflcations, ald actual income of both parti :s, keeping in mind the standard of living enjoyed during th,: marriage and the principle of fairness. Similarly, in Chaturt,t uj u. Sita Bai (2OO8l 2 SCC 316, it was observed that the -erm "mea-ns" under maintenance laws does not implrv r rere physical capability to earn, but actual earning capacitv o income.

9. In view of the admitted facts and tlr : absence of supporting material to demonstrate that the r( spondent-wife has independent income, the Court below right.l i exercised its cretion under Section 24 of the Ac t. The interim i I I I i -., 4 maintenance awarded is only a temporarJi arrangement pending adjudication of the main proceedings, and therefore, this Court frnds no illegality or materid irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he intends to place additional material before the trial Court to substantiate his plea regarding the frnancial capacity of the wife, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce such evidence during the course of enquiry -while determining the final maintenance under Secr,ion 25 of the Act. Further, even on an overall assessment of the petitioner's admitted income and the interim maintenance granted, which approximately constitutes around 25o./o of his net earnings, this Court finds the quantum awarded as interim maintenance to be reasonable and proportionate.

11. In view of the foregorng discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, rvith liberty to the petitioner to place 7 f relevant material before the trial Court at the approp.iate stage for determination of finai maintenance. The interim a 5 order granted by the trial Court, being reaso;r rble and in accordarrce with law, calls for no interference ' TI ere shall be i I no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any ' shall stand closed. SD/. A.JAYASREE Ali iISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,\"r,o* oFFrcER To, Huzurabad.

1. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge Cum Assl. Sessions Judge At 2. One CC to SRl. SHANIGR POLASA Advocate topuo 9 9ne QQ !o SRl. P RA"JAGOPAL REDDy Advocaie [oF,i C] 4. Two CD Cooies GE/PSL HIGII COURT DATED:2811O12025 ORDER CRP.No.26l8 of 2025 ? 6 () I \ rEs T4 r o I i {1F 2l]26 = * cre- q: DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS t \vt" i i i I I I I