- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chandra Prakash Vishwakarma v. Smt Poonam Vishwakarma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 18thOF APRIL, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 4754 of 2025
CHANDRA PRAKASH VISHWAKARMA
Versus
SMT POONAM VISHWAKARMA
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Kumar Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
By way of this petition challenge is made to the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has awarded Rs.6000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 HMA and Rs.500/- per date of hearing towards litigation expenses.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order was effective from 16.06.2025 and during pendency of the present petition, the main proceedings under Section 9 HMA have been disposed of in February, 2026 and therefore, it is a question of payment of maintenance for a period of 8 months.
3. Upon going through the application under Section 24 filed before the trial Court, it is seen that the respondent-wife did not make any prayer towards interim maintenance, but only prayed litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per date of hearing and Rs.15,000/- as lump-sum expenses
1
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
towards litigation cost and Advocate fees.
4 In the application under Section 24 in paragraph 7 it was further clarified that separate application claiming maintenance under Section 144 BNSS has already been filed separately before a different Court. This indicates that the respondent had deliberately not made any prayer for pendente lite maintenance, but had only made a prayer for litigation expenses. The omission in the relief clause of the application to pray pendente lite maintenance is not by way of oversight or typographical mistake, but it is deliberate in nature.
5. Therefore, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the litigation cost part shall stand affirmed whereas the pendente lite maintenance part shall stand set aside.
6. It is further made clear that this order shall not be read in any manner in the pending maintenance proceedings under Section 144 BNSS. It is further clarified that if any amount has already been paid by the petitioner towards pendente lite maintenance, then he will not seek recovery, but may make prayer for adjustment of the said amount in the pending case under Section 144 BNSS
7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. rj
2
Alert