Father's absolute obligation to maintain minor child under Cr.P.C. Section 125 unaffected by mother's employment; voluntary financial liabilities secondary to child's paramount right; Rs.8,000 monthly interim reasonable, no revisional interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Case No.210 of 2022 titled “Aradhya Vs. Deepak Kumar” under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court allowed the interim maintenance application filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 (minor child) and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

3. The marriage between the revisionist and the mother of respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 08.02.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, a female child, namely respondent no. 2, was born.

4. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties. The mother of the minor child moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Roorkee seeking maintenance for the minor child. Along with the main petition, an application for interim maintenance was also filed.

5. The revisionist filed his written statement and objections to the interim maintenance application. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the minor child, payable from the date of the application.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and passed without proper appreciation of the material available on record.

8. It is contended that both the revisionist and the mother of the minor child are serving in government employment. The revisionist is serving in CRPF, whereas the mother of the child is serving in CISF. Therefore, the learned Family Court erred in fastening the entire liability of maintenance of the child upon the revisionist alone.

9. It is further submitted that the mother of respondent no. 2 did not place on record complete details of her income nor annexed her salary slips, thereby concealing material facts. Despite such concealment, the learned Court below proceeded to fix interim maintenance.

10. Learned counsel argues that the revisionist is drawing a gross salary of approximately Rs.63,702/- per month, out of which substantial deductions are made towards loan instalments. It is submitted that:

Rs.6,454/- and Rs.18,640/- are deducted towards loan repayments;

Approximately Rs.4,000/- is spent towards personal expenses and food;

The revisionist is also responsible for maintaining his aged parents and younger siblings.

11. It is contended that the learned Court below did not properly consider the financial liabilities of the revisionist while determining the quantum of interim maintenance.

12. It is also argued that the interim maintenance has been awarded from the date of the application without assigning adequate reasons, though there was no deliberate delay attributable to the revisionist in contesting the proceedings.

13. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is non-speaking and based on conjectures and surmises and