Facts
Respondents 1–5, the petitioner’s wife and children, sought interim maintenance and marriage expenses for their daughter, Respondent No. 2, under Section 144(1) of the BNSS.
Source reference: p.4–5, para. 5–6The Magistrate ordered interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month for each respondent and ₹20,00,000 towards the daughter’s marriage expenses.
Source reference: p.4–5, para. 5–6In revision, the Sessions Court reduced the marriage-expense amount to ₹12,00,000, cancelled interim maintenance for Respondents 1 and 3, and reduced the monthly amount for Respondents 2, 4 and 5 to ₹4,000 each.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4The petitioner sought to set aside those orders under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Source reference: p.2, petition prayer; p.3, para. 4He had undertaken to pay ₹6,00,000 towards the marriage expenses but did not do so; the respondents also produced a letter indicating that he was a recognised Class-I contractor in the Public Works Department.
Source reference: p.6, para. 8–9Issues
1. Whether the petitioner established grounds for the High Court to interfere under Section 528 of the BNSS with the Sessions Court’s order in revision.
Source reference: p.3–4, para. 4–5; p.6–7, para. 92. Whether the direction to pay ₹12,00,000 towards Respondent No. 2’s marriage expenses should be set aside or modified.
Source reference: p.6–7, para. 8–10Law Applied
The petition invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, identified in the petition as corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to seek the High Court’s intervention against the orders below.
Source reference: p.2, petition prayer; p.3, para. 4The underlying maintenance application was brought under Section 144(1) of the BNSS.
Source reference: p.4, para. 5The Court stated that matrimonial disputes between parents should not cause inconvenience to their children concerning livelihood and maintenance.
Source reference: p.5, para. 7No judicial precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court found no basis to disturb the Sessions Court’s order.
Source reference: p.6–7, para. 8–9The petitioner had failed to honour his undertaking to pay ₹6,00,000 towards the marriage expenses, and the letter identifying him as a recognised Class-I contractor did not support his contention that he could not meet the expense.
Source reference: p.6–7, para. 8–9Applying its stated concern that the parents’ matrimonial dispute should not prejudice their children, the Court held that the petitioner had shown no ground for setting aside the order.
Source reference: p.5, para. 7; p.7, para. 9Holding
The petition was dismissed, and the Sessions Court’s order dated 23 July 2026 was confirmed.
The petitioner was directed to pay ₹12,00,000 towards Respondent No. 2’s marriage expenses before the date of the marriage.
Source reference: p.7, para. 10The Magistrate was also directed to expedite and dispose of the pending matter at the earliest.
Source reference: p.7, para. 10Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
ASLAM MASTERvsRESHMA TABASSUM
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
