Case: Tej Bahadur Maurya vs. Smt. Nisha Maurya
Date: 7 April 2026
Background of the Case:
Dispute arose from an order passed by Family Court, Prayagraj, under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Family Court had directed husband to pay ₹4,000 per month to his wife as interim maintenance (maintenance pendente lite) during pendency of matrimonial proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, husband approached Allahabad High Court by filing an appeal.
Appeal filed by husband was delayed by 72 days. High Court, after considering the reasons mentioned in application, condoned delay and allowed matter to be heard on merits. Accordingly, delay condonation application was allowed.
Arguments by the Husband (Appellant):
Husband argued that he is merely a labourer with very limited income and is not in a position to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance. He contended that trial court failed to properly consider his financial condition and liabilities. He further submitted that he had already placed details regarding his income, expenditure, and other responsibilities before the trial court. Additionally, he alleged that his wife is living with another man and that there was a mutual separation between them, supported by an affidavit, which according to him was ignored by the trial court.
Stand of the Wife (Respondent):
Wife opposed the submissions made by husband and stated that allegations levelled against her were false, fabricated, and intended to defame her. She submitted that affidavit referred by husband had been obtained through deceit, particularly as she is not well educated. She also emphasized that she has no independent source of income and is dependent on maintenance for her survival and to support her responsibilities.
Observations of the High Court:
Upon examining the record, High Court observed that trial court had duly considered submissions made by both parties before passing impugned order. Court held that the allegations raised by husband involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be properly adjudicated during course of trial and not at the stage of interim maintenance. It reiterated that under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, either spouse who lacks sufficient independent income is entitled to maintenance during pendency of proceedings. Court further observed that mere assertion of financial hardship is not sufficient, and such claims must be substantiated with credible evidence.
Key Remark by the Court:
In a significant observation, Court remarked that if a man feels that he is not in a position to maintain his wife and family, he should not enter into marriage. This observation underscores the legal and moral responsibility that accompanies the institution of marriage.
Final Decision:
After considering the entire matter, High Court concluded that there was no material infirmity in order passed by Family Court. Court held that amount of ₹4,000 per month awarded as maintenance is reasonable, especially in view of the prevailing cost of living, and cannot be said to be excessive or unaffordable. Consequently, appeal filed by husband was dismissed, and order directing payment of maintenance, along with arrears as previously determined, was upheld.
Legal Significance:
This judgment reaffirms settled legal position that maintenance is a binding obligation arising out of marriage. It highlights that unsubstantiated allegations cannot be used as a ground to deny interim maintenance and that financial incapacity must be proved with cogent evidence. The ruling also reinforces the principle that courts will ensure financial support to a dependent spouse during litigation, in order to maintain fairness and dignity in matrimonial proceedings
