AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 285 wordsGajendra Singh, J
This criminal revision under section section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 25.02.2026 in MJCR No.487/2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain (MP) whereby an amount of Rs.16,000/-per month was awarded in favor of respondent no.1/wife and Rs.11,000/- per month was awarded in favour respondent no.2/minor child from the date of application i.e. 12.11.2024 as interim maintenance.
It is not in dispute that marriage of the revision petitioner and respondent was solemnized as per hindu rituals and respondent no.2 was born from the wedlock on 26.01.2023.
An application for maintenance was preferred on 12.11.2024 alleging neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain themselves, various acts of cruelty and sufficiency of means of the husband.
The scope of revision in a challenge to the order of interim maintenance is very limited, as propounded by the Apex Court in the case o f Malkeet Singh Gill vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 2024 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."
Considering the above in the above limited scope and the amount of maintenance, the impugned order is just and proper and interference is called for. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.