Interim maintenance orders must adhere to Supreme Court guidelines on financial disclosure and income assessment.

The petitioner (husband) filed Matrimonial Case No. 28 of 2024 before the Family Court, Lakhisarai, seeking a declaration that his marriage to the respondent was null and void

During the proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for interim maintenance and litigation expenses

On 02.08.2025, the Family Court allowed the application, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 2,500/- per month for litigation expenses, with a proviso that if the marriage is later declared void, the petitioner could recover these amounts

The petitioner challenged this order via the present Civil Miscellaneous Application.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding interim maintenance without following the procedural mandates regarding the assessment of financial status

2. Whether the impugned order of the Family Court is sustainable in light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings

The mandatory guidelines established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which necessitate a proper assessment of the income and financial status of both parties—typically through the filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities—before determining the quantum of maintenance

The High Court noted that both parties conceded that the Family Court failed to follow the principles established in Rajnesh v. Neha

Specifically, the trial court did not conduct a proper assessment of the respective income or financial standings of the petitioner and respondent before fixing the maintenance amount

The analysis centered on the procedural irregularity where the legal framework for determining "means" was ignored, rendering the impugned order legally infirm. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required a de novo consideration by the trial court to ensure compliance with Supreme Court mandates

As an interim measure, the Court awarded the respondent a one-time litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (inclusive of travel expenses)

The Court further ordered the recall of any distress warrants issued against the petitioner pursuant to the quashed order, pending the fresh decision by the trial court