In a revision against an ex parte interim maintenance order, the court's scope is limited to verifying procedural service. A husband retains a primary legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to his spouse to prevent destitution, notwithstanding unproven claims regarding the spouse's financial self-sufficiency.

JUDGMENT :

GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

2. The present criminal revision assails the ex parte order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court, whereby the application filed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to his wife, opposite party No.2, as interim maintenance from the date of the order. The revisionist further challenges the judgment and order dated 03.10.2023 whereby the recall application preferred by the revisionist against the ex parte order was rejected, as well as the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2023 preferred by the revisionist.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party No.2 was solemnized on 23.02.2014 according to Hindu rites and customs. From the said wedlock, two children, namely Kumari Himanshi and Asharv, were born. The opposite party No.2 instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and moved an application under Section 23 of the Act seeking grant of interim maintenance during pendency of the proceedings. The revisionist did not appear before the court despite service, and a Domestic Incident Report was also placed on record.

4. Upon consideration of the material available on record and being satisfied that the application disclosed a prima facie case under the Act, the learned trial court passed an ex parte interim order dated 01.03.2023 directing the revisionist-husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance, covering expenses relating to food, clothing, medical needs and other basic necessities. The trial court further granted visitation rights to the mother to meet her children twice a week, i.e every Monday and Thursday.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist moved an application seeking recall of the ex parte order, which was rejected by the trial court clearly recording that the revisionist had been duly served and had failed to appear before the court. It further observed that the revisionist had failed to demonstrate how the continuance of the ex parte order caused prejudice to him, particularly when he had not disputed that opposite party No.2 was his legally wedded wife. The revisionist thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge challenging the aforesaid orders. The appellate court, after hearing both parties, noted that the revisionist had not denied the marital relationship with opposite party No.2. The principal contention raised before the appellate court was that opposite party No.2 was residing with her parents without sufficient cause and that since the order was passed ex parte, she was not entitled to maintenance. The appellate court found no merit in the submissions and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The revisionist has thus approached this Court challenging the aforesaid three orders.

6. The principal ground urged in the revision is that after about six years of marriage, the conduct of opposite party No.2 became strained towards the revisionist and his parents. It is alleged that she began insisting the revisionist to live separately f