Facts of the Case

The respondent-wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son on the ground that after marriage she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands and was compelled to live separately. She asserted that she had no independent source of income to maintain herself and her child, whereas the husband possessed sufficient financial resources.

During the pendency of the maintenance proceedings before the Family Court, an application for interim maintenance was filed. The Family Court allowed the application and directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to the minor son, payable from the date of filing of the application.

Aggrieved by the interim maintenance order, the husband preferred a criminal revision before the Uttarakhand High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Family Court correctly assessed the husband's financial capacity while granting interim maintenance.
  2. Whether the interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC required interference in revisional jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the High Court should direct payment of maintenance arrears in instalments.
  4. Whether the matter should be referred for mediation at the revisional stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

The revisionist-husband contended that:

  • He was merely an employee earning approximately ₹8,200 per month, and the Family Court ignored his salary certificate.
  • His earlier business had already been closed and he no longer had substantial income.
  • He had never harassed or deserted his wife, and she was residing separately on her own accord.
  • He was willing to keep his wife and child with him and was also prepared to pay maintenance, but the amount fixed by the Family Court was excessive considering his financial condition.
  • Certain telephonic conversations indicated interference by the wife's relatives in the matrimonial relationship, and therefore the dispute could be amicably resolved through mediation.
  • The arrears of interim maintenance should be permitted to be paid in instalments.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent-wife maintained that:

  • She and her minor son were unable to maintain themselves independently.
  • She had been compelled to reside separately due to matrimonial disputes and dowry-related harassment.
  • The husband possessed sufficient earning capacity despite his attempt to portray himself as having limited income.
  • The Family Court rightly appreciated the available material before awarding interim maintenance.

Court Order / Findings

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the challenge to the interim maintenance order and held that no interference was warranted.

The Court observed that:

  • The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order.
  • The Family Court had carefully examined the husband's financial position before granting interim maintenance.
  • The Family Court noted that although the husband claimed to earn only ₹8,200 per month, he was simultaneously paying an EMI of ₹21,499, which contradicted his claim of limited income.
  • The Court also considered that after being asked to disclose his connection with Shaan Trading Company, the husband got the GST registration standing in his name cancelled, which supported the inference that he was engaged in business activities.
  • Questions regarding the alleged telephonic conversation could not be conclusively determined at the interim stage and did not justify interference with the maintenance order.
  • Although matrimonial disputes may sometimes be resolved through mediation, the High Court found no necessity to summon the parties for mediation while the main proceedings were pending before the Family Court.
  • Regarding the request for payment of arrears in instalments, the High Court observed that such a request could appropriately be made before the Family Court, which would consider it in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was disposed of without disturbing the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

Important Clarification

  • Mere production of a salary certificate does not conclusively establish the financial capacity of a person where surrounding circumstances indicate otherwise.
  • Courts are entitled to consider actual financial conduct, liabilities, business activities and other surrounding circumstances while determining interim maintenance.
  • Revisional courts ordinarily do not interfere with interim maintenance orders unless there is manifest illegality or perversity.
  • Requests for payment of maintenance arrears in instalments may be considered by the Family Court on an appropriate application.
  • Mediation remains available in matrimonial disputes, but pendency of maintenance proceedings alone is not a ground for interference with a lawful interim maintenance order

Sections Involved

  • Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Maintenance of Wife, Children and Parents
  • Principles governing Interim Maintenance
  • Revisional Jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785144001_2081compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.