IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that interim maintenance under Section 125 must consider the financial capacity of the payer and the needs of the dependents.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 12.03.2024, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.360 of 2023, Poonam Chandola and others Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Chandola, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.17,000/- per month to the private respondents, as interim maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code, filed by the respondent no.1, Smt. Poonam Chandola, claiming maintenance for herself as wife and for her two children from the revisionist. According to the respondent no.1, she and the revisionist were married on 14.12.2005, but after marriage, she was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry. The revisionist beat her under the influence of liquor. The respondent no.1 was pressurized to get certain land from her mother. The respondent no.1, in fact, sought one Bigha land from her mother, in which, the revisionist started construction, but suddenly, he stopped it. He harassed and finally, deserted the private respondents on 24.07.2023.

4. It has been the case of the respondent no.1 that she is not able to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist is an Army Officer, who gets Rs.90,000/- per month salary. In the case an application for interim maintenance has also been filed, that has been objected to by the revisionist.

5. According to the revisionist, the respondent no.1 had romantic relations with some other person. She wanted to stay in her mother’s house and got one Bigha land transferred in her name from her mother. The revisionist took loan to raise construction on it. The revisionist is also paying Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the private respondents.

6. It has been the case of the revisionist that due to her lifestyle, the respondent no.1 is staying in her mother’s house. On income, the revisionist claims that the respondent no.1 utilizes the property of her mother. He gets Rs.75,000/- salary, out of which, he pays many installments of loans which he had taken. Hardly Rs.15,000/- remains with him, out of which, he pays Rs.10,000/- to the private respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance is on higher side. He would submit that the revisionist is paying installments of loans; his gross salary is about Rs.84,570/- and net salary is Rs.70,591/-. He pays Rs.15,564/- as installment of Personal Loan and Rs.19,871/- as installment against Housing Loan.

8. Learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that the impugned order is in accordance with law; the revisionist wanted to evade payment of maintenance to the private respondents. Therefore, after filing of application under Section 125 of the Code, he took Personal Loan for no reasons. It is argued that these factors have been discussed in the impugned order.

9. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order.

10. The challenge is made to the interim maintenance order, in which, the findings are tentative. They would attain finality once parties are permitted to produce evidence. Admittedly, the revisionist works in Army. Pay Slip has been tendered at the time of hearing, which reveals that in the month of April, 2024, the gross salary of the revisionist was Rs.84,570/- and after deduction the net salary of the revisionist is Rs.70,591/-; his Provident Fund deduction is only Rs.5,000/-, whereas at the time of hearing of the interim relief application, it was stated by the revisionist that the deduction of Provident Fund is Rs.20,000/-.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that in the month of January, 2024 the deduction for Provident Fund was Rs.20,000/- which is no