—

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 6509 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
VIKAS KUMAR S/O MAHENDRA DOHRE, AGED ABOUT
31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KATHA TEHSIL MOHONI,
DISTT. BHIND (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAKHAR NAVERIA – ADVOCATE)

AND
SMT. PRITI GAUTAM D/O RAMRUP, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AKNIVA, DISTT. JALON (UTTAR
PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENT

T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by the instant petition filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is challenging the order passed by the trail
Court on 30.10.2019 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the trial Court has allowed the
application of the respondent/wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for grant of maintenance. He submits that there was an agreement between
the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife with regard to get the decree of
divorce after paying permanent alimony lump-sump to the tune of Rs.14 lacs
and out of the said amount, Rs.7 lacs has already been paid by the petitioner to
the respondent. He submits that thereafter the respondent/wife has refused to
2

give divorce to the petitioner and demanded some extra amount i.e. Rs.20 lacs
in total. He submits that since the petitioner was not agreed with the same,
therefore, he moved an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
before the Family Court for getting decree of divorce on the basis of settlement-
deed. He submits that during pendency of the said application, an application
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent for
claiming maintenance pendente lite and in turn, the said application got allowed
awarding Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. He submits that once
the settlement has been taken place between the parties for getting the decree of
divorce and pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs.7 lacs has already been paid to

the respondent/wife and thereafter, respondent/wife has not only refused to
abide by the conditions of that settlement but also moved an application for
taking divorce, there was no need for the trial Court to allow the application
filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and grant maintenance
pendente lite to the respondent/wife.

2. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere in
the impugned order passed by the trial Court because the application filed under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been decided by the trial Court on the
basis of affidavit submitted by the parties and if at all, the respondent/wife has
admitted the fact with regard to receiving the amount of Rs.7 lacs, then that can
be a ground for granting a decree of divorce, but the wife’s right for granting
maintenance pendente lite cannot be denied only on this count. Under such
circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not call for
any interference.

3

3. The petition being without any substance, is hereby dismissed.

4. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the application expeditiously,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
DEVASHISH
MISHRA
2024.01.03
11:02:00 +05’30’