Interim maintenance orders need not finally adjudicate disputed evidence or detailed matrimonial claims.

The petitioner challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, passed in Maintenance Case No. 454 of 2022, whereby interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month was awarded to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3—his wife and minor daughter—at ₹10,000 each.

The petitioner contended that his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without valid reason, was unwilling to resume cohabitation, and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.

He further asserted that he was already paying ₹10,000 per month, at ₹5,000 each to his wife and daughter, pursuant to an earlier order dated 18 January 2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47811 of 2024.

The petitioner also argued that his wife was highly educated and capable of earning, while his salary of approximately ₹90,000 per month was substantially reduced by loan and vehicle-loan instalments.

According to him, the Family Court had failed to consider his affidavit and supporting documents.

The State opposed the revision and supported the impugned order.

Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear despite repeated calls.

Whether the Family Court erred in granting interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month each to the petitioner’s wife and minor daughter without finally adjudicating the petitioner’s allegations of desertion, the wife’s earning capacity, and his financial liabilities?

Whether the petitioner’s existing payment of ₹5,000 per month each to his wife and minor daughter justified interference with the Family Court’s direction for interim maintenance?

Whether the petitioner’s obligation to maintain his minor daughter continued notwithstanding his disputes with his wife?

The Court applied the principle that a parent has a statutory and pious obligation to maintain his minor child, independent of disputes between the spouses.

It further held that, while considering interim maintenance, the Family Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of all evidence or conclusively determine disputed questions such as desertion, earning capacity, and financial liabilities; those matters may be examined upon the parties adducing evidence and at the stage of final adjudication.

The Court also recognised that amounts already being paid under an earlier maintenance order are liable to be adjusted against the interim maintenance payable under the subsequent order.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court noted that the impugned order was interlocutory and that the petitioner’s existing payment of ₹5,000 each to his wife and daughter was to be adjusted against the amount fixed by the Family Court.

Consequently, the practical additional burden was ₹5,000 per month towards the wife’s maintenance.

The Court declined to adjudicate at the revision stage whether the wife had deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause, whether she was capable of earning, or whether the petitioner’s loans materially affected his liability, since those issues required evidentiary consideration by the Family Court.

Irrespective of the petitioner’s grievances against his wife, his obligation to maintain his minor daughter remained undisputed and legally enforceable.

The Court therefore found no illegality, impropriety, or infirmity in the interim order.

The petitioner was permitted to raise all his objections and grievances—supported by evidence—before the Family Court, which was directed to consider them while passing the final order in the maintenance proceedings.