Interim maintenance may be denied where disputed questions of paternity and misconduct require adjudication through trial evidence.

The Applicants (wife and minor son) filed a revision challenging the Family Court of Mahasamund's order dated 13.01.2026, which rejected their application for interim maintenance in Misc. Criminal Case No. 63/2025.

The wife alleged that the Non-Applicant (husband), a government Patwari, subjected her to cruelty and dowry demands and maintained an illicit relationship with a co-worker.

The Non-Applicant denied the allegations, specifically contesting the paternity of the second child (Applicant No. 2) based on an alleged DNA report and a lack of physical access since March 2022.

The Family Court rejected the interim maintenance plea, holding that disputed facts regarding paternity and misconduct required a full trial and noting that the summary proceedings under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. could be disposed of expeditiously.

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error by adjudicating disputed questions of paternity and adultery at the stage of interim maintenance

2. Whether the Applicants were entitled to interim maintenance based on the prima facie relationship and the husband's financial capacity as a government employee

Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs maintenance proceedings for wives and children

statutory presumption of legitimacy regarding children born during a valid marriage

the overarching objective of maintenance laws to prevent destitution and ensure basic subsistence

The High Court found that the Family Court's decision was judicious and well-reasoned.

It observed that when serious disputes regarding paternity, misconduct, and entitlement are raised, such questions of fact can only be properly adjudicated through a full-fledged trial involving evidence.

The Court highlighted that proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS are summary in nature and designed for early disposal.

Consequently, it determined that the Family Court did not err in deferring the maintenance determination to the final trial, as the issues were too complex for a summary interim assessment.

the Court directed the Family Court to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS preferably within three months, provided there are no legal impediments.