Statutory obligation of husband to maintain wife and minor children overrides claims of financial incapacity or illness.

The applicant (husband) challenged the order dated 03/02/2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in MJC No. 1250/2024

The respondent No. 1 (wife) filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, and the applicant's extra-marital relations, which led to her being ousted from the matrimonial home with their three minor children

The applicant countered that the respondent left voluntarily, alleged she had an illicit relationship, and claimed financial incapacity due to liver disease and the burden of caring for aged parents

The Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of the four respondents (wife and three children), totaling Rs. 4,000/- per month

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in awarding interim maintenance to the wife and minor children despite the husband’s allegations of desertion and financial incapacity?

The Court primarily applied the principles governing interim maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The core legal doctrine derived from this source is the existence of a statutory and moral obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and minor children who are unable to maintain themselves. The law emphasizes that while allegations of conduct and financial incapacity are relevant, they do not automatically absolve the husband of his duty to provide basic sustenance during the pendency of litigation

The High Court observed that the marital relationship and the paternity of the three minor children were undisputed

Although the applicant raised defenses regarding the wife's voluntary desertion and his own medical condition (liver disease), the Court found that the Family Court had already taken these rival submissions and counter-allegations into account

The Court reasoned that the amount awarded—Rs. 1,000/- per month per person—was a "modest sum" and could not be characterized as excessive or unreasonable

The High Court held that the statutory obligation to support minor children and a wife with no independent source of income overrides the husband's claims of limited financial capacity, and found that the trial court exercised its discretion judiciously

The Court affirmed that the interim maintenance order reflected a balanced and reasoned approach. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed as devoid of merit. The Court ordered a certified copy of the judgment to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance