/216/2025 of SANDEEP SINGH Vs SMT. NIDHI SINGH @ SAMEEKSHA SINGH on 27 November 2025

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. The Office has reported a delay of 17 days.

3. We have gone through the application for the condonation of delay. We find the reasons given in the affidavit are sufficient.

4. We allowed the application for condonation of delay.

5. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. Order on Appeal

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent in Matrimonial Case No. 327 of 2021, 'Sandeep Singh Vs. Smt. Nidhi Singh @ Sameeksha Singh', where the appellant Sandeep Singh had prayed for a Decree of Divorce under Section 13(1) against the respondent. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Daya Shankar Tiwari, Aditya Pandey, Manju Sonkar Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Sandeep Singh .....Appellant(s) Smt. Nidhi Singh @ Sameeksha Singh .....Respondent(s)

3. We have gone through the order dated 25.09.2025 passed on Section 24 application made by the wife i.e the respondent. The Court has considered the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha(Supra) decided on 04.11.2020 and the affidavits filed on behalf of both parties in compliance of such application. The Trial Court has also referred to judgement rendered by this Court in 2006

(1) ALJ wherein this Court taking into account judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of the parties during marriage is not to be considered while passing an appropriate order on an application under Section 24, during pendency of the divorce.

4. The appellant could not prove that the respondent was able to earn her own living independently. Also, she was living separately from the appellant, therefore, the Trial Court has directed the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum reimbursement on litigation expenses already undertaken and Rs.20,000/- as lump sum for future litigation expenses and Rs.500/- to be paid to the respondent on every date where she appears before the Trial Court in the pending Divorce Suit.

4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is unemployed and is being maintained by his father, who gets pension.

5. We are not concerned with the petitioner's current status of unemployment. When he married the respondent, he accepted the responsibility to take care of her. He was sufficiently mature at the time of his marriage in 2018.

6. The litigation expenses a total amount of Rs.30,000/- in this day and age in the city of Lucknow cannot be said to be unreasonable and also Rs.500/- to be given to the respondent on every date where she appear before the Family Court in the Divorce Suit cannot be said to be unreasonable.

7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. November 27, 2025 Darpan Sharma FAPLD No. 216 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench