Akanksha Singh vs Mukund Singh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1655/2024, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/wife has been partly allowed and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife/applicant.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is limiting the facts herein to the extent they relate to the order dated 19.02.2026, whereby the application for grant of interim maintenance has been allowed at only Rs. 3,000/- per month, whereas the respondent/husband is a Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Bengaluru, and is drawing a salary in lakhs. The applicant and the respondent were married on 12.12.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The applicant's parents gave a substantial amount in cash and kind, including gold ornaments and household articles, at the time of marriage and thereafter, in order to ensure a comfortable life for the applicant. After the marriage, the respondent began subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty and demanded additional dowry. Disputes arose between them, and on 15.11.2024, the respondent abandoned the applicant at Raipur Airport and has since shown no intention of resuming cohabitation, thereby deserting her willfully. Thereafter, on 30.12.2024, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an application for grant of interim maintenance, inter alia, on the following grounds: the respondent subjected the Applicant to physical and mental harassment and demanded additional dowry. He used to assault her over trivial matters and frequently quarreled with her at the instigation of his parents, sister, and relatives. Being aggrieved by such acts, the applicant lodged a complaint on 12.09.2024 at Bengaluru for offences under Section 498A IPC, which is currently under investigation. The respondent has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Bengaluru, which has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is likely to be transferred to Durg, Chhattisgarh.

The respondent is employed as a Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Bengaluru, and is earning a salary in lakhs per month, with no substantial liabilities. His father is a retired officer from Bhilai Steel Plant and is financially well-settled, leading a comfortable life with his wife. On account of the desertion and cruelty, the applicant also initiated divorce proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- per month, along with an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The respondent, in his reply to the application for interim maintenance, contended that he is unable to pay maintenance. However, the applicant is residing separately with her parents, is unemployed, and is living in a state of destitution. It is an admitted position that the respondent is employed as a Senior Manager in Canara Bank and is earning more than Rs. 1 lakh per month. During the proceedings, both parties filed their affidavits regarding income and assets in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha. Without properly considering the documents and material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 19.02.2026, granted interim maintenance of only Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is arbitrary, perverse, and passed without proper application of mind. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant prefers the present revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, illegal, and contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the present case. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the evidence regarding the salary of the respondent, as  disclosed  in  his  affidavit.  The  interim  maintenance  of Rs. 3,000/- per month has been fixed without any reasonable basis and is wholly inadequate, considering the status and standard of living of both the applicant and the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Family Court has based its findings on unfounded grounds, the veracity of which has not been corroborated by any evidence on record. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the income of the respondent, his liabilities, and the genuine needs of the applicant, and has drawn erroneous inferences without due consideration of the material on record. The learned Family Court has not assigned any reasons for disregarding the documentary evidence pertaining to the income of the respondent, as reflected in the salary slip, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The facts stated by the applicant on affidavit ought to have been duly considered. The gross salary of the respondent was required to be taken into account in accordance with law, and appropriate inferences should have been drawn for determining interim maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that admitted facts, particularly regarding income, do not require strict proof, and facts not specifically denied are deemed to be admitted. The learned Family Court has ignored the evidence and documents placed on record in light of the judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha, and has failed to draw appropriate inferences in favour of the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to observe that sufficient material exists on record to establish the financial capacity of the respondent to maintain the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned order is improper, incorrect, and contrary to established judicial precedents and settled legal principles. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are the result of improper appreciation of the evidence, including documentary proof of income. The impugned order suffers from material illegality and is liable to be set aside. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enhance the interim maintenance to at least Rs. 50,000/- per month.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused.

However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment.