Interim maintenance under Section 125 is provisional and requires evidence of adoption for claims by stepchildren; the court upheld the Family Court's assessment of income and entitlement.

JUDGMENT

Sumeet Goel, J.

Vide this common judgment I shall decide two separate criminal revision petitions, bearing numbers CRR(F) 950 of 2019; and CRR(F) 45 of 2020, filed against a common order passed by the learned Family Court, Ambala, deciding the claim of interim maintenance, in a petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance. The parties in the present judgment are being referred to as per their status in CRR(F) 950 of 2019 to avoid any confusion due to any overlapping in both the petitions. The brief chronology of the facts giving rise to the filing of these two criminal revision petitions by the parties are:

2. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 took place on 03.04.2010. However, no child was born out of wedlock of the petitioner with respondent No.1. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was their second marriage, prior to their marriage on 03.04.2010, the petitioner had a daughter from his previous marriage; and respondent No.1 had a daughter from her previous marriage.

3. The relations between the parties are stated to have become strained since the beginning of marriage, however, the parties lived together as husband and wife for a period of more than eight years and eventually the parties got separated from each other on 04.08.2018. There are allegations and counter-allegations regarding cruel and atrocious conduct by the parties against each other. However, that part of the allegations between the parties not being germane to the adjudication of the present criminal revision petitions, this Court refrains from going into the veracity and truthfulness of the same, leaving it to be decided by the learned Family Court, at an appropriate stage, after taking into account the evidence to be led by the parties.

4. After getting separated from each other, respondent No.1 (wife) and respondent No.2 (her son from previous marriage) filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner (husband), in the learned Family Court at Ambala, seeking the grant of maintenance.

5. The learned Family Court, Ambala vide its order dated 04.10.2019 held that the respondent No.2 being the son of respondent No.1 from her previous marriage is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. However, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance to respondent No.1, to be paid by the petitioner @ Rs. 40,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition, being legally wedded wife.

6. Challenging the said order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, the petitioner (husband) filed CRR(F)-950- 2019 seeking setting aside of the said order with the averments that the respondents are not entitled to the grant of any maintenance. However, the respondents (wife and her son from previous marriage) filed CRR(F)-45-2020 seeking enhancement of the interim compensation already granted by the learned Family Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case carefully.

8. The petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned Family Court with the averments that the respondent No.1 is a quarrelsome and egoistic lady. The petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is vague, containing wrong and false facts. The respondent No.1 left the company of the petitioner without any sufficient reason. Since the respondent No.2 fell into bad habits, the petitioner tried to discipline him, but the respondent No.1 thought that the petitioner was scolding him unnecessarily and therefore left the company of petitioner. She got a criminal case registered against the petitioner at Police Station Ambala Cantt. under Sections 498, 420, 406, 323 of IPC and at the time of grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in said case an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid by the petitioner to her. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 filed a wrong affidavit of her assets be