# Avdhesh Kumar v. Smt. Dhruvi Chandra

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1469
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal Defective No. 541 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Satya Veer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avdhesh-kumar-v-smt-dhruvi-chandra-52764
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Whether the Family Court's order directing
maintenance pendente lite was excessive
and required modification in appeal.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section - 12 - Defective first Appeal -
challenging the impugned order - whereby the
Family Court granted interim maintenance Rs.
15000/- per month and Rs. 20,000/- towards
litigation expenses - Appellant-husband argued
net salary was Rs. 34,196.85, so 25% ceiling
(per Supreme Court precedent) should apply -
Respondent-wife alleged monthly income of Rs.
80,000 - both parties were failed to produce
salary slips before the Family Court - Court
drew adverse presumption against appellant
regarding deductions - held - in view of law laid
down in case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary the
Family Court's order and direction of impugned
maintenance pendente lite are upheld - appeal
does not bear merit and is dismissed.(Para 6, 7)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Kalyan Dey Chowdhary vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary,
AIR 2017 SC 2383

LIST OF ACTS
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Maintenance pendente lite - Litigation expenses
- Net salary - Adverse presumption - Appeal
dismissed - Salary slip evidence - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Interim relief

CASE ARISING FROM
Family Court judgment dated 28th April, 2025 -
Maintenance pendente lite order.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Dinesh Kumar
Singh.
Counsel
for
Respondent(s):
Mr.
Sanjay
Srivastava, Mr. Avdhesh Kumar, Mr. Ganesh
Shanker Patel.

## Text

11 All. Avdhesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Dhruvi Chandra
1469
ossification test or by any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the child welfare
committee or the JJB."

33(33.2.3.) When an application
claiming juvenility is made under Section 94 of
the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the
matter regarding the alleged commission of
offence is pending before a court, then the
procedure contemplated under Section 94 of
the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the said
provision if the JJ Board has reasonable
grounds for doubt regarding whether the
person brought before it is a child or not, the
Board shall undertake the process of age
determination by seeking evidence and the age
recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be
true age of that person. Hence the degree of
proof required in such a proceeding before the
JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking
a claim of juvenility when the trial is before
the criminal court concerned, is higher than
when an inquiry is made by a court before
which the case regarding the commission of
the offence is pending (vide Section 9 of the JJ
Act, 2015)."

10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
section shows that only after the documents
provided under Sub Clause (i) or Sub Clause
(ii) of Section 94(2) of the Act are not
available, the ossification test of the accused
can be ordered. In the present case, the
documents as per sub-clause (i) were produced
before the Board but were not considered. As
per the aforesaid sub clauses only in the
absence of the documents mentioned subclause (i) or (ii) resort to ossification test
should be made. In the present case, the board
as well as Appellate Court committed patent
error of law in relying upon the ossification
test report as per sub-clause (iii) when the
documents produced before the board as per
sub clauses- (i) and (ii) were brought on
record.

11. So in the present case, medical
opinion was improperly relied upon despite
the existence of valid document, i.e. High
School certificate available on record.

12. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

13. The order dated 25.08.2025 passed
by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional
Sessions Judge, Room No. 13, Saharanpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025, titled X
through its natural guardian/mother vs. State
of U.P. and another and the order dated
19.3.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2025;
arising out of Case Crime No. 475 of 2025,
under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and
Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station
Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, are
hereby set aside and the matter be remanded
back to the court concerned to decide the
matter afresh, in accordance with law.

14. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1469
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 541 of 2025

Avdhesh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Dhruvi Chandra ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dinesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sanjay Srivastava

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Family Court's order directing
maintenance pendente lite was excessive
and required modification in appeal.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section - 12 - Defective first Appeal -
challenging the impugned order - whereby the
Family Court granted interim maintenance Rs.
15000/- per month and Rs. 20,000/- towards
litigation expenses - Appellant-husband argued
net salary was Rs. 34,196.85, so 25% ceiling
(per Supreme Court precedent) should apply -
Respondent-wife alleged monthly income of Rs.
80,000 - both parties were failed to produce
salary slips before the Family Court - Court
drew adverse presumption against appellant
regarding deductions - held - in view of law laid
down in case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary the
Family Court's order and direction of impugned
maintenance pendente lite are upheld - appeal
does not bear merit and is dismissed.(Para 6, 7)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Kalyan Dey Chowdhary vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary,
AIR 2017 SC 2383

LIST OF ACTS
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Maintenance pendente lite - Litigation expenses
- Net salary - Adverse presumption - Appeal
dismissed - Salary slip evidence - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Interim relief

CASE ARISING FROM
Family Court judgment dated 28th April, 2025 -
Maintenance pendente lite order.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Dinesh Kumar
Singh.
Counsel
for
Respondent(s):
Mr.
Sanjay
Srivastava, Mr. Avdhesh Kumar, Mr. Ganesh
Shanker Patel.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned
advocate appears on behalf of appellanthusband. He submits, the appeal stands
preferred against judgment dated 28th
April, 2025 of the Family Court, directing
maintenance pendente lite. The appeal was
presented in time and also certified copy of
formal order filed by supplementary
affidavit on 21st July, 2025. Yet the appeal
stands marked as defective.

2. He submits further, service has been
made. Mr. Ganesh Shanker Patel, learned
advocate holding the brief appears on
behalf respondent. He hands up judgment
dated 29th October, 2025 of the Family
Court, rejecting appellant's petition under
section 12 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The certified copy is handed back.

3. By our order dated 6th November,
2025 we had recorded that office report of
4th November, 2025 said, the certified
copy had been kept in the file. As such
regular number be allotted. Mr. Singh
hands up English translation of impugned
judgment with copy to Mr. Patel.

4. On query submission at the Bar is,
the learned advocates are ready to argue the
appeal. Mr. Singh submits, salary slip of
his client stands disclosed at page-60 of the
appeal papers. Net salary credited is
Rs.34,196.85/-. The Supreme Court in
Kalyan Dey Chowdhary vs. Rita Dey
Chowdhary reported in AIR 2017 SC
2383 had declared that not more than 25%
of the net salary can be directed to be paid
as maintenance pendente lite. In this case
11 All. Avdhesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Dhruvi Chandra
1471
direction of Rs. 15,000/- out of net salary
credited at 34,196.85/-, is almost 50%. The
direction be modified in appeal, following
Kalyan Dey Chowdhary (supra).

5. Mr. Patel submits, the direction
should not be interfered with. The Family
Court had gone into the facts and found
that of the claim made by his client, only
Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid as
litigation expenses and Rs. 15,000/- per
month as maintenance pendente lite. There
was the marriage duly solemnized on 21st
January, 2024 but shortly thereafter parties
separated. His client has been compelled to
live separately. Appellant did not provide
for her maintenance and even after
impugned judgment, no payment was
made.

6. Perused impugned judgment dated
28th
April,
2025.
No
documentary
evidence was produced before the Family
Court by appellant nor respondent. Rs.
80,000/- was alleged by respondent to be
monthly income of appellant, who having
not produced his salary slip before the
Family Court, has disclosed at page-60 one
payment advice dated 31st March, 2025 in
respect of his salary. From it we see, gross
salary is Rs. 74,542.85/-. It is close to the
figure
of
Rs.
80,000/-
alleged
by
respondent.
Furthermore,
there
are
deductions of, inter alia, loans taken by
appellant. Those deductions and deduction
of aggregate income tax of Rs. 3,060/-
reduced the net income figure to aforesaid
sum
of
Rs.
34,196.85/-
Considering
appellant did not produce any salary slip
before the Family Court nor preceding or
subsequent salary slips in relation to the
disclosed slip dated 31st March, 2025
before us, there is adverse presumption
against appellant that the deductions for
repayment of loans are annual deductions.
In the circumstances, respondent, who, we
presume could not lay hands on appellant's
salary slip, by alleging his income to be Rs.
80,000/- was more truthful before the
Court.

7.
In
Kalyan
Dey
Chowdhary
(supra), there was reference to an earlier
case, where the direction amounted to 25%
of the income of the other spouse. In view
of above impression we have of appellant,
we are unable to accept Rs. 34,196.95/- as
appellant's net income. Directions for,
litigation expenses at Rs. 20,000/- and
maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 15,000/-
per month appear to have been correctly
deduced by the Family Court. Impugned
judgment is confirmed.

8. The appeal does not bear merit. It is
dismissed.
----------