Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2026 MPHC-JBP 32527
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2026 MPHC-JBP 32527
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Pushpraj Shukla v. Smt. Shalini

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

    AT JABALPUR

    BEFORE

    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 24thOF APRIL, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 1896 of 2026

    PUSHPRAJ SHUKLA

    Versus

    SMT. SHALINI

    Appearance:

    Ms. Sulekha Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

    ORDER

    By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has allowed application of the respondent-wife for pendente lite maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and granted pendente lite maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month.

    2. The respondent in her application under Section 24 had contended that marriage took place on 21.5.2023 and the respondent is not working anywhere and is not earning anything. The financial condition of her parents' family is also not very good and therefore she may be granted interim maintenance.

    3. The application was contested by the applicant on the ground that the respondent is an educated lady and she can get a job and even prior to her marriage she was working in a school at Hanumana District, Mauganj. However, no pleading of any present employment was made in the reply and

    1

    (VIVEK JAIN)

    JUDGE

    the petitioner admitted in the reply that he is doing the work of agriculture in the village.

    4. In view of the aforesaid, as the petitioner has admittedly been doing the work of agriculture in the village, the amount of Rs.3000/- granted by way of pendente lite maintenance does not appear to be exorbitant to this Court looking to the present cost of living.

    5. Consequently, the impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

    6. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. nks

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Pushpraj Shukla v. Smt. Shalini
    (Apr 24, 2026)