Interim maintenance warrants no revisional interference absent a shockingly excessive award.

The applicant-husband and respondent-wife were married on 4 July 2022 according to Hindu rites and customs.

On 3 November 2025, the respondent filed proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking maintenance and interim maintenance, alleging cruelty, harassment, assault, and that the applicant had sufficient income from a shop, agricultural land, and other sources.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, was educated, knew beauty-parlour work, and earned approximately ₹15,000 per month. He claimed that he operated only a small village Kirana shop with his brother and earned approximately ₹5,000 per month.

After considering the pleadings, affidavits, documents, and the parties’ financial disclosures, the Family Court, Raipur, by order dated 5 June 2026, awarded the respondent interim maintenance of ₹7,000 per month from the date of filing of the application.

The applicant challenged that order in the present criminal revision.

Whether the Family Court erred in awarding interim maintenance of ₹7,000 per month without properly appreciating the applicant’s defence regarding his limited income, the respondent’s alleged earning capacity, and her alleged voluntary separation from the matrimonial home.

Whether the amount of interim maintenance awarded was excessive or so high as to warrant interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing claims for maintenance by a wife and the grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings.

The Court proceeded on the principle that interim maintenance is to be assessed on the basis of the pleadings, documents, financial disclosures, the parties’ respective circumstances, prevailing prices, and medical expenses, and that revisional interference is not warranted merely because another view on the quantum may be possible.

An interim-maintenance amount may be interfered with where it is shown to be legally unsustainable or shockingly excessive.

The High Court examined the applicant’s contention that the Family Court had disregarded his claim of earning only ₹5,000 per month and had failed to consider the respondent’s alleged income and voluntary separation.

However, on perusal of the impugned order, it found that the Family Court had considered the parties’ pleadings, documents, and evidence before partly allowing the application for interim maintenance.

The High Court further held that, having regard to the prevailing price index and medical expenses, the award of ₹7,000 per month could not be characterised as “shockingly” excessive so as to justify interference in revision.

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision as devoid of merit.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Family Court for information and compliance.