The main legal point established is the obligation of a party to comply with Supreme Court guidelines on affidavit of disclosure in maintenance proceedings and the statutory mandate for timely disposal of applications for interim maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad in Case No.187 of 2020 (Smt. Samiksha Saran & Another Vs. Anubhav Verma), whereby the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 seeking interim maintenance from the revisionist has been decided and as against the demand of Rs.50,000/-per month towards maintenance of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 who are the wife and the minor daughter of the revisionist, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month to his wife and Rs.15,000/-per month to his daughter. He has also challenged the order dated 27-09-2021, whereby the Family Court has rejected his application “FOR REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE ORDER PASSED ON 13.08.2021”.

3. The revisionist has contended that the Principal Judge, Family Court has not provided him a proper opportunity of hearing. After service of summons of the case, the revisionist put in appearance for the first time on 08-01-2021, on which date he was supplied copies of the application for maintenance, affidavit in support of the same and the application for interim maintenance without the affidavit as required as per the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

4. His submission is that the opposite party no. 2 filed an affidavit dated 16-02-2021 in compliance of the aforesaid judgment, without filing any document as required in law and various contents necessarily required were not correctly stated in the affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 filed some documents on 12-08-2021, which were not relevant for adjudication of the quantum of interim maintenance. Although the revisionist sought an adjournment on 13-08-2021, the learned Principal Judge passed an order awarding interim maintenance. While passing the order of interim maintenance, the learned Principal Judge has not recorded a finding as to whether the opposite party no. 2 is legally entitled to receive interim maintenance.

5. On 04-09-2021 the revisionist filed an application before the Principal Judge, Family Court for setting aside the order dated 13-08-2021 and to provide opportunity of hearing but the same was rejected by means of an order dated 27-09-2021.

6. While challenging the aforesaid orders, the revisionist has submitted that if he is compelled to pay the interim maintenance awarded to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, it will be very harsh and difficult for him to pay the EMI’s of Rs.31,068/- payable against the Housing Loan (in the joint names of revisionist and the opposite party no. 2), which is being paid by the revisionist alone. The revisionist, being the only son of his parents, is bearing the responsibility of his younger sister who is about to get married and he has to bear the expenses of his father who has undergone a major surgery of Fistula and earlier has undergone a major bypass heart surgery in the year 2017. His mother is suffering from high blood pressure and is diabetic whose medical expenses are also borne by the revisionist.

7. The revisionist has filed a written statement in reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and he has filed objections against the application for interim maintenance on 16-03-2021.

8. On 13-08-2021 the revisionist filed an application for adjournment of the case on the ground that he had engaged a new counsel. The said application was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court for the reason that there was no sufficient ground for adjournment.

9. The second and the third Provisos appended to Section 125 provide as follows :

“Provided further that the