Husband’s Revision Against Interim Maintenance Order Dismissed Where Spousal Relationship Is Admitted and Undisputed

The applicant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on April 18, 2003, and have two adult sons.

On August 1, 2024, the respondent filed for maintenance and interim maintenance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging physical and mental cruelty, dowry harassment, and that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on September 19, 2023.

She claimed she was sustaining herself through private tuitions and family assistance.

The applicant denied these allegations, contending the respondent left voluntarily without cause and possessed sufficient income and assets.

On February 16, 2026, the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, passed an interim order in CAN No. 669/2026 directing the applicant to pay ₹15,000 per month.

The applicant challenged this order via the present criminal revision.

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in awarding ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance without a full inquiry into the parties' exact incomes.

2. Whether the respondent is disentitled from claiming maintenance on the grounds of voluntary separation and potential self-sufficiency.

The Court applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

This provision (analogous to Section 125 of the CrPC) empowers the court to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings based on a prima facie assessment of the marital relationship and the necessity of support.

The court followed the principle that disputed questions of fact, such as the specific reasons for separation and the exact financial standing of the parties, are matters for trial and do not bar the grant of interim relief.

The High Court observed that the Family Court’s decision was based on the admitted fact of the marital relationship and the reality of the parties residing separately.

It reasoned that an interim maintenance order is inherently provisional and aimed at preventing vagrancy during litigation.

The Court found that the Family Court correctly deferred the adjudication of "rival contentions"—such as the wife's alleged income from tuitions, the husband's liabilities, and the specific circumstances of the separation—to the evidence stage.

Since these issues require detailed trial evidence, the High Court determined that the Family Court's reliance on prima facie considerations was "just and proper" and did not suffer from non-application of mind or arbitrariness.

The criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to transmit the original records back to the Family Court within one week for the continuation of the proceedings.