Interim maintenance directed by Family Court remains enforceable regardless of outcomes in separate criminal proceedings.

The petitioner (husband) challenged the interim maintenance order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Maintenance Case No. 63 of 2024.

The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay ₹10,000 per month as interim maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2 (wife), ₹2,000 per date of hearing, and a one-time legal expense of ₹5,000.

The petitioner contended he was already paying ₹10,000 per month under a previous anticipatory bail order from the Sessions Court and argued he had lost his job as a Block Cooperative Officer due to harassment by the wife.

The wife contended that the petitioner voluntarily left his job to evade maintenance and noted they have a three-year-old daughter to support.

1. Whether the interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court was excessive or suffered from legal infirmity given the pre-existing maintenance order from the Sessions Court.

2. Whether the direction to pay ₹2,000 per date of hearing was disproportionate.

The court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (implied) regarding interim maintenance.

The court applied the principle that interim maintenance orders are discretionary and should not be interfered with unless there is a patent illegality, infirmity, or irregularity.

It further recognized the principle of adjustment of maintenance amounts across different proceedings to ensure the husband is not unfairly double-burdened for the same relief.

The Court observed that the Family Court’s order specifically clarified that the ₹10,000 interim maintenance was the same amount already being paid under the Sessions Court's order, thereby imposing no additional financial burden on the petitioner.

The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of joblessness as a ground for interference at the revisional stage, noting that such disputed questions of fact regarding income and employment must be proved through evidence during the final hearing in the Family Court.

Regarding the litigation expenses of ₹2,000 per hearing, the Court found this amount reasonable and not "excessive".

The Court concluded that since the impugned order was merely interim, the petitioner retained the right to present his defense and evidence before the trial court for the final adjudication.

The Court held that the petitioner must continue to pay ₹10,000 per month until the final disposal of Maintenance Case No. 63 of 2024, regardless of the status of the criminal case in which the Sessions Judge initially ordered maintenance. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court for an expedited final order.