The court affirmed the interim maintenance order based on reasonableness and preservation of dignity, emphasizing that financial hardship should not negate contextual need.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.16 of 2025 Jyoti Bora Vs. Dheeraj Singh, whereby, the application 5ga filed by the respondent No.2 for interim maintenance was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4,000/-per month as interim maintenance, on 10^th day of each month from the date of filing that application for interim maintenance.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist-husband and respondent No.2-wife were got married on 23.11.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals, but, later on some marital discord cropped up between the husband and the wife. Thereafter, the respondent No.2-wife had instituted a Misc. Criminal Case under Section 144 of the BNSS 2023 before the Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar with the false averments. He further submits that the respondent No.2 only remained 25 days in her matrimonial house and left the matrimonial house on 18.12.2024 without any sufficient reason, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from her husband as provided under Section 144 (4) of the BNSS 2023 , but learned Family Court had not considered the said fact at the time of allowing the application of respondent No.2 for interim maintenance.

3. It is further contended by him that the revisionist had produced affidavit showing his assets/income, which reveals that his income is only Rs.6,000/- per month and the interim maintenance was granted @Rs.4,000/- per month, thus, the impugned order is completely based on presumption without assessing the actual income of the revisionist, and therefore, is totally erroneous, patently illegal and bad in the eyes of law.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Court below and it had rightly allowed the application of the respondent No.2 for interim maintenance.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents available on record as well as the judgment and order impugned in the present criminal revision. The learned Trial Court delved upon the issue in great detail and passed the impugned judgment and order. The amount is quite considerate and therefore, it needs no interference. The reasoning given by the learned District Udham Singh Nagar while allowing the application of the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 05.06.2025, is quite convincing and needs no interference. Moreover, only interim maintenance has been awarded by the learned Court below, the final adjudication of main petition is yet to be done and the argument of the revisionist-husband that the respondent-wife is stayed with him only for a period of 25 days, and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance under Section 144 (4) of the BNSS 2023 , shall also be considered at the time of adjudication of the main petition.

6. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed in-limine.