Interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is based on the legal obligation to support spouses and children, irrespective of the spouse's income.

JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed challenging the interim order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Ottapalam.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent filed MC No.8/2024 before the Family Court, Ottapalam under Section 125 of Cr.P.C/144 of the BNSS,2023. The respondents also filed a petition for interim maintenance. The Family Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of ₹5,000/- each per month to the respondents. It is challenging the said order, this original petition has been filed.

3. I have heard both sides.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute.

The petitioner being the legally wedded husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd respondent is legally and morally bound to maintain them. The petitioner does not have a case that the 1^st respondent is having any job or source of income. According to the petitioner, he is a coolie and gets only ₹700/- per day. The petitioner is aged only 29 years. He is an able-bodied man. He cannot contend that with the income he receives, he cannot maintain the respondents.

5. When this original petition came up for hearing last time, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that both sides did not file the affidavit showing the assets and liabilities before the Family Court and hence the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the judgment inRajnesh v Neha & Another [(2021)2 SCC 324] . Hence, I called for a report from the learned Family Court Judge, who reported that the 1^st respondent has filed affidavit showing the assets and liabilities whereas the petitioner did not file the same. Having failed to file the affidavit showing the assets and liabilities, the petitioner cannot take up a contention that the impugned order was passed without calling for the affidavit showing the assets and liabilities of the parties. Considering the requirement of the respondents and the ability and means of the petitioner, the interim monthly maintenance ordered at the rate of ₹5,000/- each per month to the respondents is absolutely reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The original petition is accordingly dismissed.