Higher salary no ground to deny estranged wife financial assistance to meet litigation expenses, says CGHC

Raipur: 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, observing that her higher income as a govt teacher does not disqualify her from receiving basic financial assistance to attend court proceedings. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on June 2 ruled that the amount awarded was not substantive maintenance for sustenance, but a limited allowance to ensure effective participation in matrimonial litigation.

The husband, a resident of Ambikapur in Sarguja district, had challenged the March 10, 2026 order of the Surajpur family court, that 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.

Counsel Gyan Prakash Shukla, representing the husband through video conferencing, argued that the family court erred in its interpretation of section 24. He said that the wife, employed as a govt teacher in Surajpur district, earns Rs 71,482 per month, which is 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”.

The division bench, after perusing the records, acknowledged that both parties are govt servants and that the wife’s income is admittedly higher than the husband’s. 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 HC observed that such awards cannot be viewed in a rigid or hyper-technical manner. The objective of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is to avoid financial hardship in prosecuting or defending matrimonial litigation.

The bench said that matrimonial proceedings require repeated appearances before the court, which entail expenditure on commuting and meals. The court 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. Finding no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the family court order, the HC dismissed the appeal.