The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man challenging a family court order that directed him to pay litigation and travel expenses to his estranged wife. The court observed that her higher income as a government teacher does not disqualify her from receiving basic financial assistance to attend court proceedings.
Court's Ruling
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled on June 2 that the amount awarded was not substantive maintenance for sustenance but a limited allowance to ensure effective participation in matrimonial litigation. The bench emphasized that such awards cannot be viewed in a rigid or hyper-technical manner.
Background of the Case
The husband, a resident of Ambikapur in Sarguja district, had challenged the March 10, 2026 order of the Surajpur family court. That order partly allowed an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by his wife, granting her a one-time litigation expense of Rs 3,000 and Rs 1,000 per month for transportation and food.
Arguments Presented
Counsel Gyan Prakash Shukla, representing the husband through video conferencing, argued that the family court erred in its interpretation of Section 24. He stated that the wife, employed as a government teacher in Surajpur district, earns Rs 71,482 per month—nearly three times the husband’s monthly salary of approximately Rs 25,700 as a contractual Ayush medical officer. The counsel contended that since the wife is financially independent and has no dependents, she failed the fundamental legal test of an “inability to maintain oneself”.
High Court's Observations
The division bench, after perusing the records, acknowledged that both parties are government servants and that the wife’s income is admittedly higher than the husband’s. However, the bench noted that the family court had awarded a nominal amount towards litigation-related and incidental expenses incurred during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings.
The court observed that the objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is to avoid financial hardship in prosecuting or defending matrimonial litigation. Matrimonial proceedings require repeated appearances before the court, which entail expenditure on commuting and meals. The bench further noted that the husband failed to demonstrate how a modest sum of Rs 1,000 per month and a one-time payment of Rs 3,000 caused him any grave financial burden or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Conclusion
Finding no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the family court order, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The ruling underscores that even a financially independent spouse may be entitled to basic assistance for litigation expenses to ensure equal access to justice.
