IMPORTANT POINT
Interim maintenance under Section 125 is essential for immediate support, and the court must consider the financial capacity of the parties without making conclusive findings on the merits.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 29.11.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.339 of 2023, Sofia Nawaj vs. Aas Mohammad, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.6000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent no.2.

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

3. The case is based on the application filed by the private respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) seeking maintenance from the revisionist. According to the private respondent, she and the revisionist were married on 15.07.2021, but after marriage, she was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry. She was beaten up badly and admitted in the hospital. Finally, according to the application filed by the private respondent on 08.05.2022, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. It has been the case of the private respondent that she is not able to maintain herself whereas, the revisionist works in J.K. Tyre Company, Laksar District Haridwar and gets Rs.65,000/- per months. The revisionist did file objections in the application under Section 125 of the Code. He has denied all the allegations of atrocities and demand of dowry, etc.

4. It is the case of the revisionist that, in fact, just after marriage, the private respondent had started creating trouble in the family of the revisionist. She was compelling the revisionist to stay separate from his parents and family members and for that reason alone she has deserted the revisionist.

5. According to the revisionist, the private respondent knows knitting and other related work and she is able to maintain herself whereas, the family of the revisionist is dependent on him. According to the revisionist, he gets Rs.19,000/- net salary. He has taken loan, etc.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of interim maintenance is on higher side; the net salary of the revisionist is Rs.19,191/-; his family members are dependent on him; he has to pay installment, as well. Therefore, the amount may be reduced.

7. The impugned order is an order for interim maintenance during the pendency of the application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the private respondent. At this stage conclusively any finding may not be recorded.

8. Admittedly, the revisionist and the private respondent are husband and wife. There is divergence with regard to the reasons for the private respondent staying separate. On the one hand, according to the private respondent, she has been harassed, tortured and beaten-up in her maternal house and finally expelled, due to which, she is staying separate and she is not able to maintain herself whereas, according to the revisionist, it is the private respondent, who had created trouble in the family soon after the marriage and had pressurized the revisionist to stay away from his family and this is the reason attributed by the revisionist to the private respondent for staying separate.

9. What is the truthfulness of the averments may find disposal when the application filed under Section 125 of the Code is decided. A payslip of the revisionist has been enclosed, which has been considered by the court below. The total salary of the revisionist is stated to be Rs.21,971.65/- after deduction of Rs.2561/- in Provident Fund and other deductions in the payslip, the revisionist claims that he is receiving Rs.19,191/-. Nothing has been shown by the revisionist that he is the only person to maintain his family.

10. It is a revision. The factual aspects may not be considered at this stage. Generally no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so viz. if irrelevant material is considered and relevant material is not considered or the finding is perverse. In the instant case, the court below has discussed the material available on re