The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Smt. Bharti Gupta, refusing to grant interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. The Division Bench held that the appellant had already received ₹7.5 lakh as permanent alimony under an earlier settlement and had failed to establish any significant change in circumstances that would justify a fresh claim for interim maintenance.
Background of the Case
The dispute between Smt. Bharti Gupta and Vishnu Gupta dates back several years. According to the court record, the parties married in 2008, and matrimonial litigation began soon thereafter. Multiple divorce proceedings were initiated over the years, including a mutual consent divorce petition that ultimately failed after the agreed terms were not complied with. Later, the husband instituted another divorce petition, during which the present application for interim maintenance was filed.
Before the Family Court, the wife claimed that she had been left without financial support and sought ₹20,000 per month as maintenance, alleging that the husband earned around ₹50,000 monthly through a medical store. The husband denied these allegations, contending that she was earning independently and was not entitled to maintenance. The Family Court rejected the application, leading to the present appeal.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, the appellant also sought an additional ₹15 lakh towards medical expenses, placing documents relating to her cancer treatment on record. However, the High Court noted that the documents showed she possessed an Ayushman Card, and there was no material explaining any financial hardship in obtaining treatment.
The Bench observed,
“The request for maintenance towards medical treatment cannot be accepted.”
The court further noted that the marriage had remained unconsummated and that the parties had spent a substantial part of their married life engaged in litigation. It also found that the appellant had unsuccessfully sought maintenance in several earlier proceedings. Significantly, the record showed that she had received ₹7.5 lakh as permanent alimony under a mutual settlement but later declined to give consent for divorce despite accepting the amount.
The Bench also observed that although the appellant claimed her earning capacity had changed since the Family Court's order, no convincing material was produced before the High Court to substantiate that assertion. Additionally, the court noted that her amended pleadings alleging the husband's unsoundness of mind weakened her own claim because maintenance from a husband of unsound mind would require proof that his condition did not impair his earning capacity.
Decision
After considering the entire record, the Division Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla concluded that no ground existed to interfere with the Family Court's order.
The Bench held,
“The appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled to any interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Bharti Gupta v. Vishnu Gupta
Case Number: First Appeal No. 1135 of 2024
Judge: Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla
Decision Date: 21 July 2026
