Interim maintenance cannot be challenged in revision unless shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or legally unsustainable.

The petitioner (husband) challenged an interim maintenance order dated 17-04-2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Morena, which directed him to pay Rs. 6,000 per month to the respondent (wife).

The parties married on 05-02-2022. The respondent alleged she was beaten and driven out of the matrimonial home on 01-11-2023 and claimed the petitioner earns Rs. 46,000 as a Peon plus rental income.

The petitioner contended the respondent left voluntarily with valuables, is an educated woman earning Rs. 20,000 from a beauty parlour and tuitions, and that he has liabilities toward his mother and brothers.

1. Whether the Family Court exercised its discretion judiciously in awarding interim maintenance based on the prima facie evidence of the parties' financial status.

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with a temporary maintenance order absent proof of perversity or patent illegality.

Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding revisional jurisdiction.

The purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) is to ensure the applicant has means of sustenance during the pendency of proceedings.

For interim relief, a "prima facie opinion" based on limited material is sufficient.

The scope of revision is restricted to checking for perversity or arbitrariness rather than re-appreciating evidence as an appellate court.

The court found that the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence to prove the respondent’s alleged income from a beauty parlour or tuitions.

Conversely, the petitioner is an able-bodied man with sufficient means, and the court observed that given current inflation, an award of Rs. 6,000 per month is not excessive.

The court reasoned that the trial court’s findings were based on a judicious exercise of discretion and that any interference at the interim stage would prematurely determine issues slated for final adjudication.

The court emphasized that the petitioner would have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and prove his allegations of the wife's hidden income during the final trial.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Trial Court's order of Rs. 6,000 per month as interim maintenance.

To prevent hardship, the High Court directed the Trial Court to expedite and dispose of the main application (MJCR No. 142/2024) within six months of receiving the order.

All observations were limited to the disposal of the revision and would not prejudice the final merits of the case.