Interim Maintenance Award Validated Based on Affidavits of Income Despite Qualifications or Separate Maintenance Proceedings

The revisionist (husband) challenged an order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-First, Family Court, Dehradun, which awarded interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the respondent (wife) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The revisionist contended that the wife was already receiving ₹5,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act, was highly qualified (M.A. Yoga, UGC-NET), and had voluntarily left her job as an Assistant Professor.

He further alleged an unexplained delay of over two years in filing the application and inconsistencies in her allegations of harassment.

The respondent argued she was unable to work due to mental distress caused by the revisionist and noted that the revisionist’s take-home salary is approximately ₹43,000 per month.

1. Whether the Family Court’s order awarding interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month suffered from jurisdictional error or perversity given the wife's qualifications and existing maintenance from other proceedings.

2. Whether the impugned order was "non-speaking" or failed to consider the financial capacities and conduct of the parties.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the grant of maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself.

The court relied heavily on the procedural and substantive mandates established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Others (2021) 2 SCC 324, which requires parties to file comprehensive affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities to determine the quantum of maintenance.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the Family Court’s decision. It observed that the maintenance was determined based on the revisionist’s own income affidavit, which disclosed a take-home salary of ₹43,000, making the ₹8,000 award justifiable.

The Court rejected the argument that existing maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act bars a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C., noting the revisionist failed to prove the total amount was excessive or duplicative.

Regarding the wife's potential to earn, the Court held that disputed questions of fact—such as the reason for her unemployment and the delay in filing—cannot be re-adjudicated in a revisional proceeding.

The Court further noted that the revisionist's failure to clear arrears of ₹1,91,000 reflected non-compliance rather than any illegality in the original order.

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision, upholding the interim maintenance order of ₹8,000 per month in favor of the respondent.