Interim maintenance under Cr.P.C. Section 125 is based on reasonable assessments of income, considering both parties' claims and financial conditions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2023 This original petition (criminal) has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the prayer herein is to set aside Ext.P4 order in M.P No.278/2021 in M.C No.65/2021 dated 04.01.2021 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the admittedly the wife and minor child aged one year (2021), had filed petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. At the same time, interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent was pressed into on the specific assertion that the respondents 1 and 2 did not have any means of maintenance. The further contention raised in the interim application was that the petitioner had been working as an Electronic Engineer at Bangalore and he had been earning Rs.45,000/- as monthly income.

4. The revision petitioner filed objection highlighting his illness, while admitting that he had been getting Rs.37,000/- as income and a substantiate portion of the same was required for his day to day life and also for repayment of Bank loan. The family Court as an interim arrangement granted Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the 2nd respondent. The above order is under challenge in this original petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the 1st respondent has been running a Super Market and therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, the Family Court went wrong in granting maintenance to the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the said contention was specifically raised in the objection filed in the interim application for maintenance. In the objection, the contention raised was that, the father of the 1st respondent had been running 'Muringatheri Stores' at Kolazhi, where the 1st respondent had been working as Manager cum Cashier and she was earning Rs.3,20,000/- per month.

6. In fact, in the objection the petitioner has no contention as regards to any permanent employment or income to be borne out prima facie. However, the contention is a matter of evidence.

In this matter, admittedly, the petitioner is a person employed as Electronic Engineer at Bangalore and he himself admitted his income to the tune of Rs.37,000/-. In such a case, grant of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the 2nd respondent as interim maintenance appears to be very reasonable. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. Accordingly, this original petition fails and is dismissed.