Case Note & Summary
The appellant-wife, Mayuriben Panchal, filed a First Appeal before the Gujarat High Court against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Family Court, Jhalod, which rejected her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month for herself and Rs.20,000 per month for her daughter, along with transportation costs of Rs.5,000 per visit. The Family Court dismissed the application on two grounds: first, that the wife failed to prove the husband's income under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and second, that she had already filed a criminal maintenance application under Section 144(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which was pending. The wife contended that she had made categorical statements about the husband's income from gold and silver business and land holdings, and that the Family Court erred in placing the entire burden on her. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Family Court's approach was erroneous. It noted that in interim maintenance proceedings, the court must adopt a liberal approach and not insist on strict proof of income. The burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act applies only to facts within the special knowledge of a party, and the husband, being in the best position to know his own income, should have disclosed it. The pendency of a criminal maintenance application does not bar a civil remedy under the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, directing it to decide the maintenance application within two months, after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Burden of Proof - The Family Court erred in placing the entire burden on the wife under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, without considering the husband's failure to disclose his income. The court held that in maintenance proceedings, the initial burden is on the claimant, but once prima facie evidence is led, the onus shifts to the other party to rebut it. (Paras 1-30) B) Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Pending Criminal Maintenance Application - The pendency of an application under Section 144(2) of BNSS, 2023, does not bar the wife from seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as both remedies are independent and can coexist. (Paras 1-30) C) Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Liberal Approach - The court emphasized that interim maintenance should be granted liberally to prevent the dependent spouse from being driven to destitution. The Family Court's rejection based on lack of evidence was contrary to the settled legal position. (Paras 1-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the wife's application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of lack of evidence and pendency of a criminal maintenance application under BNSS, 2023.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The Family Court is directed to decide the maintenance application within two months from the date of receipt of the order, after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- burden of proof under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- relevance of pending criminal maintenance application
- liberal approach in granting interim maintenance
