Interim maintenance order upheld with directions for time-bound conclusion of main Section 125 CrPC proceedings.

The applicant and respondent were married on 12.12.2016.

The applicant alleged that following the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty regarding dowry demands.

She further alleged that the respondent abandoned her at Raipur Airport on 15.11.2024 and filed for divorce in Bengaluru.

On 30.12.2024, the applicant filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking Rs. 70,000 per month and interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month.

The applicant contended that the respondent, a Senior Manager at Canara Bank, earns a monthly salary exceeding Rs. 1 lakh.

On 19.02.2026, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, partly allowed the interim application, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000 per month.

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, seeking enhancement of this amount, claiming the order was arbitrary and ignored the respondent's financial capacity.

1. Whether the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month was perverse, inadequate, or lacked proper application of mind given the respondent's income and status.

2. Whether the impugned order suffered from material illegality or infirmity requiring interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the CrPC, which provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

The court referenced the procedural mandates established by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, requiring both parties to file affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities to determine the quantum of maintenance.

The court also noted the principle that proceedings under Section 125 are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature, where the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities.

The High Court examined the submissions and the record of the trial court to determine if the Family Court had erred in its discretion.

It observed that the Family Court’s decision was reached after perusing the available evidence and hearing the statements regarding the conditions of both parties.

Although the applicant argued that the respondent’s status as a Senior Manager and his high salary were disregarded, the High Court found that the lower court had sufficiently balanced the materials on record.

The High Court concluded that there was no patent illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the interim order that necessitated exercise of revisional powers.

The court emphasized that the order in question was for interim maintenance and the final determination of maintenance would be decided during the conclusion of the main proceedings.

The revision was disposed of with a direction to the Family Court, Durg, to conclude the main proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC within three months from the date of the order, provided no legal impediments exist.