High CourtsSingle Bench

Lakhan vs MST Lakshmi And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 MP CK 0803

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19(4)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 995 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

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

9 paragraphs · 354 words

Gajendra Singh, J

1.

This revision petition under section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 17.01.2026 in MJCR No.417/2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of respondent no.1/wife, Rs.2,000/- per month to each respondent no.2 and 3 minor children has been as interim maintenance from the date of application i.e.26.03.2025.

2.

It is not in disputed that marriage was solemnized between revision petitioner and respondent no.1 on 18.02.2018 and thereafter two children were born from their wedlock in which respondent no.2 is aged about 4 years and respondent no.3 was aged 9 months.

3.

The revision petition was preferred on the ground of the quantum of interim maintenance awarded in favour of Respondent No. 1/wife. The issues raised are required to be considered in light of the evidence on record. The matter is presently fixed before the Family Court on 08.04.2026.

4.

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."

4.

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.

5.

Family Court, Indore is requested to conclude the case within a period of 4 months from 08.04.2026 and take action against those who are not cooperating in the case without being influencing by the dismissal of this revision petition.