Interim Maintenance Award Upheld as Reasonable Considering Cost of Living and Prevailing Economic Factors

The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) were married on February 16, 2014, and have a minor daughter, respondent No. 2.

The parties have lived separately since 2022 due to marital disputes.

The respondents filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur, claiming ₹16,000 per month.

The applicant contested the claim, alleging that the wife was living separately without cause and had previously received jewellery worth ₹8,00,000 as a lump-sum settlement.

On May 22, 2026, the Family Court passed an interim order directing the applicant to pay ₹1,500 per month each to the wife and daughter (totaling ₹3,000).

The applicant challenged this order via the present criminal revision.

1. Whether the interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was excessive or legally unsustainable given the applicant's financial status and allegations against the respondent.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the interim maintenance order while the main proceedings are still pending.

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves.

The court also relied on the principle that maintenance amounts must be adjudicated considering the prevailing "price index and medical expenses" to ensure the sum is sufficient for basic sustenance.

The High Court evaluated the applicant's contention that the Family Court failed to appreciate evidence regarding the wife's alleged misconduct and the prior settlement of jewellery.

However, the court observed that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were still at a preliminary stage where no witnesses had been examined.

The court reasoned that in light of current economic realities, including the rising cost of living and medical expenses, an award of ₹3,000 per month for two persons (a wife and a minor child) is not "shockingly on the higher side".

Therefore, the court determined that the interim award did not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction, as the applicant’s factual defenses could be properly adjudicated during the final disposal of the case by the Family Court.

The revision petition was disposed of with a direction to the Family Court, Bilaspur, to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of the order, provided there is no legal impediment.