A Family Court must evaluate the financial circumstances of both parties when adjudicating applications for interim maintenance, applying discretion based on compelling needs and income levels.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 17.05.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.14 of 2022, Smt. Bulbul Batra and another vs. Shri Kamal Batra, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”). By it, an application for interim maintenance filed by the revisionists has been dismissed.

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

3. It is a case based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the revisionists. According to which, the revisionist no.1 and private respondent were married on 15.12.2022. Revisionist no.1 is a Teacher, who has been getting Rs.39,800/- per month salary. After marriage, the revisionist no.1 was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. The private respondent did mar-peet in the house. According to the application, the revisionist no.2 is about to join the college. The private respondent is neglecting to maintain her. It has been objected to by the private respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the revisionist no.1 is a Teacher and earns Rs.40,000/- per month salary. She had purchased a new car recently by taking loan from the Bank.

4. It has been the case of the private respondent that the revisionists are staying in the house of his father and entire ration is purchased by the private respondent. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court rejected the interim maintenance application.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that, in fact, the income of the private respondent is much higher than what was revealed by him in the court, therefore, the application for interim maintenance ought to have been allowed by the court. He would fairly concede that in the proceedings under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”), the revisionist no.2 is getting Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance.

6. In the impugned order, the court below has taken into consideration the income of the parties based on the income tax returns. It was held that based on such returns, the income of revisionist no.1 is Rs.39,800/- per month, whereas the income of private respondent is Rs.33,184/- per month. It is admitted that the revisionist no.2 gets Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance in a proceeding under the Act.

7. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly dismissed the application for interim maintenance that is filed by the revisionist. There is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

8. The revision is dismissed.