IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4852 of 2025 MOHHAMAD REHAN ANSARI Versus SMT. FIZA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vishal Patidar - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

ORDER This criminal revision is preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family courts Act, 1984 challenging the legality of the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in MJCR No.159/2024 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam whereby an amount of Rs.8000/- per month in favour of respondent no.1/wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of respondent no.2/minor child is is awarded as interim maintenance.

2. Facts in brief are that an application claiming Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, 1973 has been filed on

22.05.2024 and an application for interim maintenance was also preferred.

3. The application was contested by the revision petitioner and vide order dated 11.08.2025, the application was partly allowed and the interim maintenance of amount is awarded in favour of the respondents as mentioned above in para no.1.

4. Challenging the order, this Criminal revision has been preferred mainly on the ground that the revision petitioner has no source of income, respondent no.1/wife is living separately without sufficient cause and respondent no.1 did not approach the Court with clean hand, she has not provided the bifurcation of the income of revision petitioner and the statements of bank account was proposed, but were not taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. Perused the record.

7. The record discloses that despite service of notice at the first instance for appearance on 11.09.2024, the revision petitioner did not proceeded promptly and the reply of the main application could only be filed on 28.05.2025. The grounds raised, are to be decided at the time of disposal of main application.

8. The scope of revision petition in a challenge to the order of interim maintenance is very limited in the light of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204 which is being reproduced as below:-

"10........... the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect of an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."

9. In the light of above principles, the findings of the trial Court is based on proper evidence. There is no perversity in the finding. Otherwise also an amount of Rs.11,000/- cannot be said to be exaggerated amount when considered the cost of living in the City like Indore.

10. In the light of aforesaid, the order of maintenance has been rightly passed and on perusal of the record the grounds raised by the revision petitioner/husband have no substance. They are not providing the grounds for interference in the above stated limited scope. Hence, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

11. However, the learned family Court, Ratlam is requested to dispose of the main application on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from today without being influenced with the rejection of this revision petition preferred by revision petitioner before this Court.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE amit