Interim maintenance of ₹8,000 is not excessive considering inflation and medical expenses despite husband’s low-income claim.

The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) were married on May 12, 2022, and have a minor son (respondent No. 2) born in 2023

The respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home in July 2024 and filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The trial court, via order dated March 2, 2026, granted interim maintenance of ₹5,000 to the wife and ₹3,000 to the child

The applicant challenged this order, contending he is a daily-wage P.W.D. worker earning ₹11,093 monthly with liabilities toward his mother and disabled sister, while asserting that the respondent is a computer operator earning ₹15,000 to ₹20,000

1. Whether the interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month awarded by the trial court was excessive or arbitrary given the applicant's income and liabilities

2. Whether the respondent's alleged independent income and voluntary departure from the matrimonial home disentitled her to interim maintenance

The court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents to prevent vagrancy

interim maintenance must be assessed based on the prevailing price index, cost of living, and medical expenses, ensuring the amount is not "shockingly high" relative to the parties' socio-economic status

The High Court examined the applicant's contention that his limited income as a daily-wage worker and his existing familial liabilities made the trial court’s award disproportionate

The Court observed that the trial court reached its conclusion after a due appreciation of the materials and evidence on record

The Court reasoned that given the current price index and necessary medical expenses for a minor child and spouse, the total sum of ₹8,000 per month was reasonable

The Court found no merit in the husband's plea to reduce the amount, determining that the trial court's order did not suffer from illegality or lack of jurisdiction

The High Court held that there was no warrant for interference with the lower court's discretionary order. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit