Manoj Singh vs Deepshikha And Others

Gajendra Singh, J

This criminal revision under section section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 10.02.2026 in MJCR No.600/2024 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore (MP) whereby an amount of Rs.7,500/-per month was awarded in favor of respondent no.1/wife and Rs.2,500/- per month was awarded in favour respondent no.2/minor child from the date of application i.e. 29.04.2024 as interim maintenance.

It is not in dispute that marriage of the revision petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 28.06.2020 at Raj Nagar, Indore as per hindu rituals and respondent no.2 was born from the wedlock thereafter. An application for maintenance was preferred on 29.04.2024 alleging neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain themselves, various acts of cruelty and sufficiency of means of the husband. An application for interim maintenance was also preferred.

Application was contested by filing the reply and it was stated that wife is earning sufficiently by working at a garment shop and she is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She is also a post graduate from Arts stream. An application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also filed before the court of JMFC, Patiala House, Delhi through mother of the husband.

Considered.

A mother of 2 years old child is residing separately and is facing the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 initiated through mother of the husband against her. Trial court has taken the factum into consideration and there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court.

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 of 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 no interference is called for. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.