IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the implied power to grant ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to ensure social justice, despite the lack of explicit statutory provision.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.01.2024 as well as order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘concerned Family Court’). At the outset; it is noticeable herein that, though in the prayer clause in the instant revision petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 23.01.2024 as also order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the concerned Family Court but a copy of the order dated 23.01.2024 has not even been annexed in the instant revision petition. The opening sheet in the instant revision also shows that challenge has only been laid to order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the concerned Family Court. Also, no arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the rival parties qua veracity of order dated 23.01.2024. Therefore; it is indubitable that, in essence, challenge has been only laid to order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the concerned Family Court. The said order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the concerned Family Court reads as under:-

“Present: Petitioner in person with Sh. Kuldeep Singh Raghav, Advocate Respondent in person with Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate

(Defence of respondent struck off vide order dated 23.01.2014)

Mediation report has not been received. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that mediation between the parties has not been effected.

One witness namely Smt. Micky Dewan is appeared as PW-1 and examined. No other witness is present. Petitioner has closed her evidence by her statement recorded separately.

At this stage Counsel for the petitioner has requested for passing some provisional order regarding maintenance

Heard. Till disposal of the interim application for maintenance, respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of this order as provisional maintenance

To come up on 09.05.2024 for payment of provisional maintenance and evidence of respondent.

01.04.2024

Sd/-Narender Kaur

Additional Principle Judge Family Court,

Gurugram (UID No. HR-0139)”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 is against the statute as there is no legislative mandate for grant of any ad-interim maintenance/provisional maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C pending final disposal of an application for interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is doing a private job at Gurugram and he is also having old aged parents to look after. Therefore, even the quantum of ad-interim (provisional maintenance) awarded, vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2024, is on the higher side. Thus, it has been prayed that the instant petition be accepted and the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 be set-aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the petitioner (herein) has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents (herein) from the date of the order i.e. 01.04.2024 as ad-interim maintenance (provisional maintenance) to tide over the difficulties being faced by the respondents (herein) during the pendency of application for interim maintenance. Learned counsel has further submitted that even; if there is no statutory mandate in Cr.P.C., 1973 to grant provisional maintenance/ad-interim maintenance; yet, the factual matrix of the lis indicates that the ad-interim maintenance (provisional maintenance) was required to be paid to the respondents (herein) in view of financial difficulties being faced by them. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.

Prime Issue

5. The prime issue that arises for consideration in the instant revision is as to whether the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the concerned Family Court deserves to be set-aside. The pivotal legal issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Court has the pow