Facts
The applicants (wife and daughter) challenged an interim maintenance order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Family Court, Mungeli
Source reference: para. 2Applicant No. 1 married the respondent in 1986; however, she alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to cruelty on 25.06.2019
Source reference: para. 3She claimed the respondent, a Government School Headmaster, earns over ₹1,00,000 per month, while she has no source of income
Source reference: para. 3, 4The respondent denied the allegations of cruelty, claiming he was already maintaining them
Source reference: para. 3The Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹2,000 per month to Applicant No. 1 but denied it to Applicant No. 2 (the daughter) as she was found to be employed at HDFC Bank
Source reference: para. 3, 7The applicants sought enhancement of the award in this revision
Source reference: para. 4Issues
1. Whether the interim maintenance amount of ₹2,000 per month awarded to Applicant No. 1 was inadequate given the respondent's income and status.
Source reference: para. 4 / 52. Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing the claim for interim maintenance by Applicant No. 2.
Source reference: para. 3 / 7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as the revisionary framework) and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Source reference: para. 2, 3The Court relied on the principles established in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021 (2) SCC 324, which mandates evaluating the income, liabilities, financial status, reasonable needs of the claimant, and the standard of living during the marriage to determine maintenance
Source reference: para. 8Reasoning
The High Court observed that while the applicants alleged being driven out in 2019, they did not file for maintenance until 2026, indicating a significant delay
Source reference: para. 7Regarding Applicant No. 2, the Court noted she is employed with HDFC Bank at Takhatpur, which disentitled her to interim maintenance—a fact undisputed by the applicants' counsel
Source reference: para. 7The Court scrutinized the Family Court's application of the Rajnesh v. Neha criteria and found that the lower court had appropriately balanced the material evidence, the respondent's financial capacity, and the parties' conduct
Source reference: para. 8The High Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Family Court's decision to grant ₹2,000 as an interim measure pending the final disposal of the case
Source reference: para. 9Holding
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, holding that the impugned order suffered from no illegality or jurisdictional error
The Court upheld the interim maintenance award of ₹2,000 per month to Applicant No. 1 and the denial of maintenance to Applicant No. 2
Source reference: para. 3, 10Original Court PDF
SMT. SARITA GUPTAvsRAMASHANKAR GUPTA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in