##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37491

2 CRR-5204-2024

Heard.

04. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition.

Perused the record.

05. The order dated 17/12/2025 reveals that the revision petitioner/wife

is not prompt in adducing the evidence. The proceedings of the trial court

disclose that the trial Court has not provided any interim relief to the revision

petitioner/wife. On the contrary has imposed the cost of Rs.4,000/- on the

date prior to 17.12.2025 that have been paid on 17.12.2025 by the revision

petitioner/wife to the respondent/husband and has imposed the cost of

Rs.2,000/- on 17.12.2025.

06. The delay in adducing the evidence cannot be appreciated, but

simultaneously imposing the heavy cost on a woman, who approached the

court for maintenance, also cannot be appreciated.

07. Considering the material available with this court indicates that the

revision petitioner/wife has not adduced her evidence before the trial Court.

08. The scope of revision in a challenge to the order of interim

maintenance is very limited, as mentioned by the Apex Court in case of

Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC

204; relevant para 10 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 or 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.”

09. Above limited scope and material available on record does not

provide the ground to interference in the impugned order. Hence, the present

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA SINGH

Signing time: 19-Dec-25

8:43:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37491

3 CRR-5204-2024

criminal revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

10. The revision petitioner/wife is directed to adduce the evidence on

the date fixed by the trial Court i.e.09/01/2026 and the trial Court is requested

to proceed in the case on day to day basis, concluding the trial within four

months and proceed in the case firmly but without imposing any cost on the

revision petitioner/wife.

11. If the revision petitioner/wife succeeds, then include this cost in the

cost of proceeding and give relief and passed the order accordingly.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE

VS

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VARSHA SINGH

Signing time: 19-Dec-25

8:43:37 PM