Interim maintenance cannot be denied on unproved allegations of adultery or customary divorce.

The applicant-husband challenged the Family Court, Bemetara’s order dated 10 March 2026 in Case No. 240/2025, whereby interim maintenance of ₹1,000 per month was awarded to his wife and ₹500 per month to their minor child, totalling ₹1,500 per month.

The marriage was solemnized on 18 February 2022 and the parties had a minor child.

The husband alleged that the wife had maintained an intimate relationship with another man, voluntarily left the matrimonial home, and that the marriage was subsequently dissolved through a customary community process on 28 March 2025, under which she allegedly received ₹21,000 as settlement.

He also disputed his financial capacity to pay maintenance and asserted that the wife was disentitled under Section 144(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The wife did not appear before the High Court.

The applicant sought setting aside or modification of the interim maintenance order.

Whether the Family Court erred in awarding interim maintenance to the wife and minor child under Section 144(1) BNSS despite the husband’s allegations of adultery, voluntary separate residence, and customary dissolution of marriage.

Whether the husband’s alleged limited income and financial hardship justified interference with the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

Whether the allegations concerning the wife’s alleged relationship with another man and the customary dissolution of marriage could be conclusively relied upon at the interim-maintenance stage.

Section 144(1) BNSS empowers the competent court to award maintenance to a wife unable to maintain herself and to a minor child, subject to the statutory conditions.

Section 144(4) BNSS contains circumstances in which a wife may be disentitled to maintenance, including living in adultery, refusing to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or living separately by mutual consent.

At the stage of interim maintenance, disputed allegations regarding adultery, customary divorce, the parties’ separate residence, and the wife’s conduct ordinarily require proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be accepted merely on the basis of unproved assertions.

The amount of interim maintenance must be reasonable, proportionate to the circumstances of the parties, and sufficient for the basic sustenance of the wife and minor child.

The High Court held that the Family Court had considered the pleadings, rival submissions, available material, and the circumstances of the parties before awarding a modest amount of ₹1,000 per month to the wife and ₹500 per month to the minor child.

The husband’s allegations of adultery, customary dissolution of marriage, and voluntary separate residence involved disputed factual matters requiring evidence and could not, at the interim stage, be treated as established merely because they were pleaded by him.

Similarly, his claim of limited income and financial hardship did not demonstrate that the award was excessive or disproportionate.

The wife’s status as the applicant’s spouse and the child’s entitlement to maintenance justified continuation of the minimal interim award.

The Court therefore found no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the Family Court’s exercise of discretion.

It upheld the Family Court’s direction requiring the applicant to pay interim maintenance of ₹1,000 per month to the wife and ₹500 per month to the minor child, totalling ₹1,500 per month.

All pending applications were disposed of, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the Family Court for information and compliance.