Madras HC Upholds ₹20,000 Interim Maintenance For Wife And Child, Saying Paternity Allegation Alone Doesn’t Automatically Defeat Child’s Claim

The wife and minor child sought maintenance under Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Judicial Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to each respondent, payable from the date of filing, directed arrears to be paid within three months, and awarded ₹15,000 towards litigation and incidental expenses.

The husband challenged the order, relying on his take-home salary of approximately ₹94,000 per month, EMI commitments of approximately ₹35,000, other expenses, the alleged lack of proof of additional income, and his dispute over the child’s biological paternity.

His application seeking DNA testing had been dismissed by the Magistrate.

Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the provision under which interim maintenance was sought.

Interim maintenance is intended to provide financial support during the pendency of the main proceedings and is not a final determination of the parties’ rights and liabilities.

A person’s loan commitments and other financial liabilities are relevant to quantum but do not, by themselves, displace the obligation to maintain a wife and minor child; the nature and necessity of those commitments must be considered.

The date from which maintenance is payable lies within the court’s judicial discretion, and revisional interference is ordinarily warranted only for patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity.

The judgment cites no specific precedent.

The Court found that the Magistrate had material showing the husband’s admitted take-home income of approximately ₹94,000 per month and had awarded substantially less than the respondents’ claim of ₹75,000 per month.

The husband’s EMIs and other expenses did not, without more, establish that the award was excessive or legally irregular; nor did the dispute over additional income negate the admitted salary evidence.

The Court held that payment from the filing date was not unlawful merely because the main proceedings remained pending.

The paternity allegation did not automatically defeat the child’s interim claim, and the revision was not the forum to determine biological paternity; that question remained for consideration by the competent court in accordance with law.

The Court found no ground meeting the threshold for revisional intervention.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.

The Magistrate was directed to decide the main maintenance proceedings independently on the evidence and contentions of both parties; the High Court’s observations were confined to the interim order.