A parent cannot evade unchallenged interim child-maintenance obligations; arrears must be cleared.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 19 March 2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

The Magistrate refused interim maintenance to petitioner no. 1/wife but awarded Rs.4,000 per month to the minor child.

The wife alleged that the husband had suppressed his actual income by failing to disclose his ownership of “Gayatri Medical,” a retail medical shop, and other businesses, and had filed a false affidavit of assets and liabilities.

During the revision, a coordinate Bench directed the husband to pay Rs.10,000 per month towards the minor child from 21 November 2024 until disposal of the revision.

The petitioners alleged that the husband paid only Rs.15,000 thereafter and accumulated arrears of approximately Rs.2,05,000 as on 31 August 2026.

The husband contended that his monthly income was only Rs.6,000 and that he lacked the capacity to pay Rs.10,000 per month.

The record indicated that, apart from his stated employment as a supervisor at Kalimata Catering, the husband was connected with a medical shop and was alleged to be engaged in home-appliance, gift-item and automobile-dealership businesses.

An execution case had also been filed for recovery of maintenance dues.

The Court applied Section 125 CrPC, which enables a Magistrate to award maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself and to a minor child unable to maintain itself, where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The Court proceeded on the principle that a maintenance order, particularly one concerning a minor child, must be complied with unless stayed, set aside or otherwise modified by a competent court.

It further applied the principle that income and assets within the husband’s personal knowledge must be fairly and truthfully disclosed through the affidavit of assets and liabilities, while disputed questions concerning concealed businesses and the precise quantum of income should ordinarily be adjudicated after giving both parties an opportunity to present evidence.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the husband had neither challenged the Magistrate’s direction to pay Rs.4,000 per month nor complied with it, and had also failed to obey the coordinate Bench’s subsequent direction to pay Rs.10,000 per month from November 2024.

His payment of only Rs.15,000, without a satisfactory explanation, demonstrated non-compliance and an attempt to evade his parental obligation towards the minor child.

The Court treated the unchallenged Rs.4,000 direction as an admitted subsisting obligation and held that the husband could not avoid payment merely by asserting limited income.

At the same time, the Court did not finally determine whether the husband owned or operated the medical shop and other alleged businesses, since those matters required consideration on the basis of evidence and could not be conclusively decided from the material available in revision.

The Magistrate was therefore directed to permit the wife to place the supplementary material on record and to allow the husband an opportunity to file written objections.

The Court declined to interfere with the refusal of interim maintenance to the wife.

The husband was directed to continue paying Rs.10,000 per month as interim maintenance for the minor child from the date of the coordinate Bench’s order until final disposal of the Section 125 CrPC proceeding, subject to adjustment of any excess payment determined at the final stage.

He was further directed to clear the arrears payable under the Magistrate’s order at Rs.4,000 per month within three months, failing which the petitioners could continue with the execution proceedings.

The wife was permitted to file a supplementary application with supporting documents concerning the husband’s alleged undisclosed businesses, with corresponding opportunity to the husband to respond.

The Magistrate was directed to dispose of the Section 125 proceeding expeditiously after hearing both parties.

The refusal to grant interim maintenance to the wife was left undisturbed.