Interim maintenance proceedings are summary in nature, intended to provide immediate support for dependents. Appellate courts should not interfere with interim orders unless they are perverse or lack a reasoned basis, as exhaustive evidentiary analysis at the interim stage frustrates the objective of prompt financial relief.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Family Court, Bokaro in Original Maintenance Case No.205 of 2023 whereby and where under the Family Court, Bokaro has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as ad interim maintenance to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 herein, from the date of filing of that case i.e. from 21.06.2023 till the disposal of the case.

4. The undisputed fact is that the opposite party No.2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and the opposite party No.3 has been born out of the said wedlock of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. It is the case of the opposite party No.2 herein- who was the petitioner No.1 before the Family Court, Bokaro that she was subjected to cruelty, torture for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and she was ousted from her matrimonial house. She also contended that the petitioner herein- who was the opposite party before the Family Court, Bokaro was not providing maintenance to her and their son- the opposite party No.3 herein, who was residing with the opposite party No.2. She also contended that she is facing hardships in providing education to the opposite party No.3. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner herein is the Vice President in Union Bank of Switzerland and posted in Hyderabad and getting salary of Rs.4,00,000/- per month as claimed by the opposite party No.2 but the petitioner admits getting monthly salary of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. The petitioner herein, in his objection filed before the Family Court, Bokaro took the plea that the opposite party No.2 is a qualified teacher and she is deliberately sitting at home without any valid reason and deliberately refusing to work. It was also contended by him that the opposite party No.2 has destroyed the marital life of the petitioner herein. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court, Bokaro formulated the following points for determination: -

(i) Whether this petition is maintainable or not?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get interim maintenance from the O.P. as sought, if so, what should be the quantum of interim maintenance?

(iii) What should be the date of payment of interim maintenance and also what should be the mode of payment?

6. The Family Court first took up point for determination No.(i) and considered the admitted relationship between the parties and also considered the admitted fact that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are living separately from the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein is not paying any money for the maintenance of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and went on to hold that the petition is maintainable.

7. Then the Family Court next took up points for determination Nos.(ii) and (iii) together and considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324. The Family Court next considered the affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2 herein where she has categorically stated that she has no income. Their date of separation is 04.06.2023 and her monthly expenses is Rs.35,000/- and the expenses of