Simplified Explanation of the Judgment:

In this case, the petitioner (wife) challenged an order of the Family Court, Kaimur, which had rejected her plea to increase the interim maintenance from ₹11,000 to ₹45,000 per month. The original matrimonial case was initiated by the husband under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.

The petitioner claimed that the Family Court’s refusal to decide on the interim maintenance enhancement application—on the grounds that the case was already at the stage of final arguments—was unjust. She argued that her husband, a Senior Manager earning ₹1,50,000 per month, could afford higher maintenance, especially considering that he delayed the process by taking 8 months to reply.

The respondent (husband), however, argued that since the case was already nearing conclusion and evidence was closed, the Family Court rightly chose not to entertain a new application for interim relief and instead proceed toward final judgment.

The Hon’ble High Court agreed with the Family Court’s rationale, stating that it is reasonable to focus on final disposal when the case is at the concluding stage. It found no jurisdictional error in the lower court’s order. Additionally, the High Court emphasized that the petitioner had not filed any separate maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC or other legal provisions, further weakening her position.

Significance of the Judgment:

This ruling is significant as it reinforces that interim maintenance applications should be decided promptly and not allowed to disrupt proceedings when the case is nearing its conclusion. It also indicates the importance of filing separate maintenance cases if a party seeks sustained financial support. The decision helps streamline matrimonial litigation and prevents delay tactics.

Legal Issues Decided and Court’s Decision:

• Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting enhancement of interim maintenance at final argument stage: No

• Whether delay in hearing interim application invalidated the lower court’s action: No

• Final decision: Petition dismissed, Family Court directed to conclude case within 3 months

Case Title: Pinki Kumari vs. Rajiv Kumar

Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 170 of 2023

Citation(s): 2024(4) PLJR (624) 

Coram and Names of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Names of Advocates:

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Baban Kumar, Advocate

• For the Respondent: Mrs. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Ms. Ankita Roy, Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Pandey, Advocates

Link to the Judgment:

NDQjMTcwIzIwMjMjMSNO-fdaRg0ujVpU=