The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the affidavit of assets and liabilities in determining the quantum of interim maintenance allowance and the need for the court to provide reasons for fixing the maintenance amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Lorin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1.

2. This Criminal Petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 397/401 of the said Code, by Sri Amit Kumar Jain, impugning the Order dated 31.01.2022, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, at Dimapur, in Maintenance Case No. 03/2022, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Petition, in brief, are as follows:-

i. That the present petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married to each other on 21.04.2007 and two children were born out of their wedlock, one son, namely, Shaksham Jain and one daughter, namely, Inaaya Jain.

ii. Both the parties are staying separately from each other since 20.03.2019. The son stays in the custody of the petitioner i.e., the father and the daughter stays in the custody of respondent No. 2, i.e. the mother.

iii. The respondent No. 2 had filed a divorce case against the present petitioner, which was registered as Divorce Case No. 44/2019 and thereafter, she filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 03/2022, claiming a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 70,000/-for herself and her minor daughter.

iv. In the said maintenance case, the respondent No. 2 prayed for an interim maintenance from the petitioner for herself and her daughter. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Dimapur directed the present petitioner to pay interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 23,000/- per month w.e.f. the month of June, 2022 to the respondent No. 2 on or before 10th day of each calendar month.

v. It appears from the LCR that though the date mentioned on the first page of the impugned order is 31.01.2022, however, same has been signed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Dimapur on 31.01.2023.

vi. It is pertinent to mention herein that by order dated 14.03.2022, this court called for the records of Maintenance Case No. 03/2022 from the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Dimapur and in the interim directed the order dated 31.01.2022 to remain suspended until further orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Maintenance Case No. 03/2022 was filed in the month of May 2022 and the first notice in the said case was issued against the present petitioner, by order dated 17.05.2022, the order directing the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 23,000/- to the respondent is dated 31.01.2022, which appears to be a glaring discrepancy and considering the said glaring discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the impugned order and hence, this court by order dated 14.03.2023 suspended the operation of the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 23,000/-to the respondent No. 2 is not a speaking order as it does not mention on what basis the quantum of Rs. 23,000/- has been fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Dimapur.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as the impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent No. 2, beyond his paying capacity, it has substantially affected the rights of the present petitioner and therefore, the same may not be regarded as an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hence, revision is not barred against the impugned order.

7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Amar Nath