Interim maintenance may be denied where marriage validity is disputed and separate living is mutual.

The applicant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on July 11, 2024, according to Hindu rites.

The applicant alleged that shortly after the marriage, the respondent and his family subjected her to mental harassment and physical assault over dowry demands, leading her to file an FIR.

Consequently, the applicant filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, along with an application for interim maintenance under Section 144(2).

The respondent contested the claim, producing a mutual agreement dated September 9, 2024, which suggested the applicant was already married to another person at the time of their wedding.

On February 9, 2026, the Family Court, Korba, rejected the interim maintenance plea based on this agreement and the pendency of a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The applicant challenged this order via the present revision petition.

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in rejecting the application for interim maintenance based on a mutual agreement and allegations of a void marriage.

The court's decision was governed by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.), which provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

The court also considered Section 144(2) of the BNSS regarding the grant of interim maintenance pending the final disposal of the application.

Additionally, the court referenced Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which pertains to void marriages.

The High Court examined the Family Court's reasoning, which centered on a "deed of mutual consent for living separately" dated September 9, 2024.

This document contained an admission that the applicant was previously married to another person, a fact allegedly suppressed prior to the marriage with the respondent.

The Court noted that the respondent had already initiated legal proceedings to declare the marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Although the applicant argued that the validity of the agreement was a matter of evidence to be decided at trial and not at the interim stage,

the High Court found that the Family Court had properly weighed the available material, including the failed conciliation proceedings and the specific allegations raised in the respondent's pleadings.

The Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the lower court's decision to deny interim relief while the substantive facts remained in dispute.

The revision petition was disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to conclude the main proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS) within a period of three months, provided there is no legal impediment.